The Nucleotide Sequence, DNA Damage Location, and Protein Stoichiometry Influence the Base Excision Repair Outcome at CAG/CTG Repeats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expansion of CAG/CTG repeats is the underlying cause of >14 genetic disorders, including Huntington's disease (HD) and myotonic dystrophy. The mutational process is ongoing, with increases in repeat size enhancing the toxicity of the expansion in specific tissues. In many repeat diseases, the repeats exhibit high instability in the striatum, whereas instability is minimal in the cerebellum. We provide molecular insights into how base excision repair (BER) protein stoichiometry may contribute to the tissue-selective instability of CAG/CTG repeats by using specific repair assays. Oligonucleotide substrates with an abasic site were mixed with either reconstituted BER protein stoichiometries mimicking the levels present in HD mouse striatum or cerebellum, or with protein extracts prepared from HD mouse striatum or cerebellum. In both cases, the repair efficiency at CAG/CTG repeats and at control DNA sequences was markedly reduced under the striatal conditions, likely because of the lower level of APE1, FEN1, and LIG1. Damage located toward the 5' end of the repeat tract was poorly repaired, with the accumulation of incompletely processed intermediates as compared to an AP lesion in the center or at the 3' end of the repeats or within control sequences. Moreover, repair of lesions at the 5' end of CAG or CTG repeats involved multinucleotide synthesis, particularly at the cerebellar stoichiometry, suggesting that long-patch BER processes lesions at sequences susceptible to hairpin formation. Our results show that the BER stoichiometry, nucleotide sequence, and DNA damage position modulate repair outcome and suggest that a suboptimal long-patch BER activity promotes CAG/CTG repeat instability.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".