MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027849611 · doi:10.1128/mcb.02025-07

A Glycine-Arginine Domain in Control of the Human MRE11 DNA Repair Protein

2008· article· en· W2027849611 on OpenAlexafffund
Ugo Déry, Yan Coulombe, Amélie Rodrigue, Andrzej Stasiak, Stéphane Richard, Jean‐Yves Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular and Cellular Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyRad50DNA repairReplication protein ANucleaseCell biologyDNA damageDNAMolecular biologyBiochemistryDNA-binding proteinGeneTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human MRE11 is a key enzyme in DNA double-strand break repair and genome stability. Human MRE11 bears a glycine-arginine-rich (GAR) motif that is conserved among multicellular eukaryotic species. We investigated how this motif influences MRE11 function. Human MRE11 alone or a complex of MRE11, RAD50, and NBS1 (MRN) was methylated in insect cells, suggesting that this modification is conserved during evolution. We demonstrate that PRMT1 interacts with MRE11 but not with the MRN complex, suggesting that MRE11 arginine methylation occurs prior to the binding of NBS1 and RAD50. Moreover, the first six methylated arginines are essential for the regulation of MRE11 DNA binding and nuclease activity. The inhibition of arginine methylation leads to a reduction in MRE11 and RAD51 focus formation on a unique double-strand break in vivo. Furthermore, the MRE11-methylated GAR domain is sufficient for its targeting to DNA damage foci and colocalization with gamma-H2AX. These studies highlight an important role for the GAR domain in regulating MRE11 function at the biochemical and cellular levels during DNA double-strand break repair.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations87
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular and Cellular BiologySame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207