MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016373103 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m110.189555

Molecular Basis of BACH1/FANCJ Recognition by TopBP1 in DNA Replication Checkpoint Control

2010· article· en· W2016373103 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Chung Yun Leung, Zihua Gong, Junjie Chen, J. N. Mark Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Light SourceHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsReplication (statistics)DNA replicationOrigin recognition complexBiologyG2-M DNA damage checkpointDNAGeneticsComputational biologyEukaryotic DNA replicationGeneVirologyCell cycle checkpointCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diverse roles of TopBP1 in DNA replication and checkpoint signaling are associated with the scaffolding ability of TopBP1 to initiate various protein-protein interactions. The recognition of the BACH1/FANCJ helicase by TopBP1 is critical for the activation of the DNA replication checkpoint at stalled replication forks and is facilitated by the C-terminal tandem BRCT7/8 domains of TopBP1 and a phosphorylated Thr(1133) binding motif in BACH1. Here we provide the structural basis for this interaction through analysis of the x-ray crystal structures of TopBP1 BRCT7/8 both free and in complex with a BACH1 phospho-peptide. In contrast to canonical BRCT-phospho-peptide recognition, TopBP1 BRCT7/8 undergoes a dramatic conformational change upon BACH1 binding such that the two BRCT repeats pivot about the central BRCT-BRCT interface to provide an extensive and deep peptide-binding cleft. Additionally, we provide the first structural mechanism for Thr(P) recognition among BRCT domains. Together with systematic mutagenesis studies, we highlight the role of key contacts in governing the unique specificity of the TopBP1-BACH1 interaction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations66
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207