Human Telomeres Are Hypersensitive to UV-Induced DNA Damage and Refractory to Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telomeric repeats preserve genome integrity by stabilizing chromosomes, a function that appears to be important for both cancer and aging. In view of this critical role in genomic integrity, the telomere's own integrity should be of paramount importance to the cell. Ultraviolet light (UV), the preeminent risk factor in skin cancer development, induces mainly cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD) which are both mutagenic and lethal. The human telomeric repeat unit (5'TTAGGG/CCCTAA3') is nearly optimal for acquiring UV-induced CPD, which form at dipyrimidine sites. We developed a ChIP-based technique, immunoprecipitation of DNA damage (IPoD), to simultaneously study DNA damage and repair in the telomere and in the coding regions of p53, 28S rDNA, and mitochondrial DNA. We find that human telomeres in vivo are 7-fold hypersensitive to UV-induced DNA damage. In double-stranded oligonucleotides, this hypersensitivity is a property of both telomeric and non-telomeric repeats; in a series of telomeric repeat oligonucleotides, a phase change conferring UV-sensitivity occurs above 4 repeats. Furthermore, CPD removal in the telomere is almost absent, matching the rate in mitochondria known to lack nucleotide excision repair. Cells containing persistent high levels of telomeric CPDs nevertheless proliferate, and chronic UV irradiation of cells does not accelerate telomere shortening. Telomeres are therefore unique in at least three respects: their biophysical UV sensitivity, their prevention of excision repair, and their tolerance of unrepaired lesions. Utilizing a lesion-tolerance strategy rather than repair would prevent double-strand breaks at closely-opposed excision repair sites on opposite strands of a damage-hypersensitive repeat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".