Preferential accessibility to specific genomic loci for the repair of double-strand breaks in human cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic organization of the human genome in the nucleus is gaining recognition as a determining factor in its functional regulation. In order to be expressed, replicated or repaired, a genomic locus has to be present at the right place at the right time. In the present study, we have investigated the choice of a double-strand break (DSB) repair partner for a given genomic loci in an ATM-deficient human fibroblast cell line. We found that partner choice is restricted such that a given genomic locus preferentially uses certain sites in the genome to repair itself. These preferential sites can be in the vicinity of the damage site or megabases away or on other chromosomes entirely, while potential sites closer to the break along the length of the chromosome can be ignored. Moreover, there can be more than a 10-fold difference in usage between repair sites located only 10 kb apart. Interestingly, arms of a given chromosome are less accessible to one another than to other chromosomes. Altogether, these results indicate that the accessibility between genomic sites in the human genome during DSB repair is specific and conserved in a cell population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".