BRCA1 Regulates RAD51 Function in Response to DNA Damage and Suppresses Spontaneous Sister Chromatid Replication Slippage: Implications for Sister Chromatid Cohesion, Genome Stability, and Carcinogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility proteins BRCA1 and BRCA2 maintain genome stability, at least in part, through a functional role in DNA damage repair. They both colocalize with RAD51 at sites of DNA damage/replication and activate RAD51-mediated homologous recombination repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB). Whereas BRCA2 interacts directly with and regulates RAD51, the role of BRCA1 in this process is unclear. However, BRCA1 may regulate RAD51 in response to DNA damage or through its ability to interact with and regulate MRE11/RAD50/NBS1 (MRN) during the processing of DSBs into single-strand DNA (ssDNA) ends, prerequisite substrates for RAD51, or both. To test these hypotheses, we measured the effect of BRCA1 on the competition between RAD51-mediated homologous recombination (gene conversion and crossover) versus RAD51-independent homologous recombination [single-strand annealing (SSA)] for ssDNA at a site-specific chromosomal DSB within a DNA repeat, a substrate for both homologous recombination pathways. Expression of wild-type BRCA1 in BRCA1-deficient human recombination reporter cell lines promoted both gene conversion and SSA but greatly enhanced gene conversion. In addition, BRCA1 also suppressed both spontaneous gene conversion and deletion events, which can arise from either crossover or sister chromatid replication slippage (SCRS), a RAD51-independent process. BRCA1 does not seem to block crossover. From these results, we conclude that (a) BRCA1 regulates RAD51 function in response to the type of DNA damage and (b) BRCA1 suppresses SCRS, suggesting a role for this protein in sister chromatid cohesion/alignment. Loss of such control in response to estrogen-induced DNA damage after BRCA1 inactivation may be a key initial event that triggers genome instability and carcinogenesis.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".