MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013892932 · doi:10.1002/em.1073

ERCC1: A comparative genomic perspective

2001· article· en· W2013892932 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Wilson, Cindy C. Ruttan, Ben F. Koop, Barry W. Glickman

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental and Molecular Mutagenesis · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersJoint Genome Institute
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsERCC1genomic DNAExonGeneNucleotide excision repairDNA repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ERCC1 plays an essential role in the nucleotide excision repair (NER) of DNA. We compare 37 kb of sequence from the ERCC1 region on human chromosome 19q13.3 to the orthologous region on mouse chromosome 7. In addition to showing the conserved gene structure between ERCC1, ASE-1, and their murine counterparts, this genomic comparison reveals a highly conserved 497 bp segment found 5 kb upstream of ERCC1 exon 1 that contains a CpG island and previously unidentified "classical" promoter elements. Additional putative regulatory elements are also found within a conserved LINE-1 (long interspersed nuclear element) sequence 800 bp upstream of exon 1 in both human and mouse. Expressed sequence tag (EST) assemblies for human ERCC1 identified numerous splice variants involving exons 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 that could affect DNA repair efficiencies of ERCC1. A previously undescribed transcript that reads through exon 9 and utilizes the polyadenylation signal of a neighboring Alu element accounts for nearly half of the total splice variants identified in the human EST database. This transcript would theoretically translate to a larger ERCC1 protein product containing a novel C-terminal end. Overall, approximately 18% of publicly available ERCC1 cDNA sequences were determined to be splice variants, while no variants were found in the mouse. The ability to assess novel transcripts and identify candidate regulatory regions demonstrates the potential utility for a catalogue archiving comparative analyses for all genes involved in DNA repair. Our comparative genomic analysis of ERCC1 can be viewed at http://web.uvic.ca/-bioweb/laj.html.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental and Molecular MutagenesisSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207