MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995008468 · doi:10.1002/jcb.21662

Fine mapping and functional activity of the adenosine deaminase origin in murine embryonic fibroblasts

2008· article· en· W1995008468 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Sibani, Emmanouil Rampakakis, Domenic Di Paola, Maria Zannis‐Hadjopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Biochemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA replicationAdenosine deaminaseMolecular biologyEmbryonic stem cellHypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferaseCell cultureDNACell biologyGeneticsGeneEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA replication initiates at origins within the genome. The late-firing murine adenosine deaminase (mAdA) origin is located within a 2 kb fragment of DNA, making it difficult to examine by realtime technology. In this study, fine mapping of the mAdA region by measuring the abundance of nascent strand DNA identified two origins, mAdA-1 and mAdA-C, located 397 bp apart from each other. Both origins conferred autonomous replication to plasmids transfected in murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), and exhibited similar activities in vivo and in vitro. Furthermore, both were able to recruit the DNA replication initiator proteins Cdc6 and Ku in vitro, similar to other bona fide replication origins. When tested in a murine Ku80(-/-) cell line, both origins exhibited replication activities comparable to those observed in wildtype cells, as did the hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) and c-myc origins. This contrasts with previously published studies using Ku80-deficient human cells lines and suggests differences in the mechanism of initiation of DNA replication between the murine and human systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular BiochemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207