MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001544231 · doi:10.5483/bmbrep.2011.44.5.341

The stimulatory effect of CaCl<sub>2</sub>, NaCl and NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub>salts on the ssDNA-binding activity of RecA depends on nucleotide cofactor and buffer pH

2011· article· en· W2001544231 on OpenAlexaff
Alicja Ziemienowicz, Seyed Mohammad Reza Rahavi, Igor Kovalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueBMB Reports · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCofactorNucleotideDNAChemistryEscherichia coliSalt (chemistry)BiochemistryHomologous recombinationBinding siteRecombinationBiophysicsBiologyEnzymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The single-stranded DNA binding activity of the Escherichia coli RecA protein is crucial for homologous recombination to occur. This and other biochemical activities of ssDNA binding proteins may be affected by various factors. In this study, we analyzed the effect of CaCl(2), NaCl and NH(4)NO(3) salts in combination with the pH and nucleotide cofactor effect on the ssDNA-binding activity of RecA. The studies revealed that, in addition to the inhibitory effect, these salts exert also a stimulatory effect on RecA. These effects occur only under very strict conditions, and the presence or absence and the type of nucleotide cofactor play here a major role. It was observed that in contrast to ATP, ATPγS prevented the inhibitory effect of NaCl and NH(4)NO(3), even at very high salt concentration. These results indicate that ATPγS most likely stabilizes the structure of RecA required for DNA binding, making it resistant to high salt concentrations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMB ReportsSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207