MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021074825 · doi:10.1534/genetics.114.173856

Replisome Function During Replicative Stress Is Modulated by Histone H3 Lysine 56 Acetylation Through Ctf4

2015· article· en· W2021074825 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pierre Luciano, Pierre-Marie Dehé, Stéphane Audebert, Vincent Géli, Yves Corda

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchInstitut National Du Cancer
KeywordsReplisomeBiologyAcetylationDNA replicationHistoneGeneticsHistone H3LysineCell biologyEukaryotic DNA replicationDNAGeneAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histone H3 lysine 56 acetylation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is required for the maintenance of genome stability under normal conditions and upon DNA replication stress. Here we show that in the absence of H3 lysine 56 acetylation replisome components become deleterious when replication forks collapse at natural replication block sites. This lethality is not a direct consequence of chromatin assembly defects during replication fork progression. Rather, our genetic analyses suggest that in the presence of replicative stress H3 lysine 56 acetylation uncouples the Cdc45-Mcm2-7-GINS DNA helicase complex and DNA polymerases through the replisome component Ctf4. In addition, we discovered that the N-terminal domain of Ctf4, necessary for the interaction of Ctf4 with Mms22, an adaptor protein of the Rtt101-Mms1 E3 ubiquitin ligase, is required for the function of the H3 lysine 56 acetylation pathway, suggesting that replicative stress promotes the interaction between Ctf4 and Mms22. Taken together, our results indicate that Ctf4 is an essential member of the H3 lysine 56 acetylation pathway and provide novel mechanistic insights into understanding the role of H3 lysine 56 acetylation in maintaining genome stability upon replication stress.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207