MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029995604 · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1321

Structural and functional evidence that Rad4 competes with Rad2 for binding to the Tfb1 subunit of TFIIH in NER

2013· article· en· W2029995604 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Lafrance‐Vanasse, Geneviève Arseneault, Laurent Cappadocia, Pascale Legault, James G. Omichinski

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscription factor II HBiologyNucleotide excision repairProtein subunitCell biologyTranscription (linguistics)Transcription factorGeneticsDNA repairBiochemistryMolecular biologyDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

XPC/Rad4 (human/yeast) recruits transcription faction IIH (TFIIH) to the nucleotide excision repair (NER) complex through interactions with its p62/Tfb1 and XPB/Ssl2 subunits. TFIIH then recruits XPG/Rad2 through interactions with similar subunits and the two repair factors appear to be mutually exclusive within the NER complex. Here, we show that Rad4 binds the PH domain of the Tfb1 (Tfb1PH) with high affinity. Structural characterization of a Rad4-Tfb1PH complex demonstrates that the Rad4-binding interface is formed using a motif similar to one used by Rad2 to bind Tfb1PH. In vivo studies in yeast demonstrate that the N-terminal Tfb1-binding motif and C-terminal TFIIH-binding motif of Rad4 are both crucial for survival following exposure to UV irradiation. Together, these results support the hypothesis that XPG/Rad2 displaces XPC/Rad4 from the repair complex in part through interactions with the Tfb1/p62 subunit of TFIIH. The Rad4-Tfb1PH structure also provides detailed information regarding, not only the interplay of TFIIH recruitment to the NER, but also links the role of TFIIH in NER and transcription.

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)0.001
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207