Double-stranded DNA Binding Domain of Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase-1 and Molecular Insight into the Regulation of Its Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) modifies various proteins, including itself, with ADP-ribose polymers (automodification). Polymer synthesis is triggered by binding of its zinc finger 1 (Zn1) and 2 (Zn2) to DNA breaks and is followed by inactivation through automodification. The multiple functional domains of PARP-1 appear to regulate activation and automodification-mediated inactivation of PARP-1. However, the roles of these domains in activation-inactivation processes are not well understood. Our results suggest that Zn1, Zn2, and a domain identified in this study, the double-stranded DNA binding (DsDB) domain, are involved in DNA break-dependent activation of PARP-1. We found that binding of the DsDB domain to double-stranded DNA and DNA break recognition by Zn1 and Zn2, whose actual binding targets are likely to be single-stranded DNA, lead to the activation of PARP-1. In turn, the displacement of single- and double-stranded DNA from Zn2 and the DsDB domain caused by ADP-ribose polymer synthesis results in the dissociation of PARP-1 from DNA breaks and thus its inactivation. We also found that the WGR domain is one of the domains involved in the RNA-dependent activation of PARP-1. Furthermore, because zinc finger 3 (Zn3) has the ability to bind to single-stranded RNA, it may have an indirect role in RNA-dependent activation. PARP-1 functional domains, which are involved in oligonucleic acid binding, therefore coordinately regulate PARP-1 activity depending on the status of the neighboring oligonucleic acids. Based on these results, we proposed a model for the regulation of PARP-1 activity.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".