MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037628829 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkv118

Roles of Rad51 paralogs for promoting homologous recombination in Leishmania infantum

2015· article· en· W2037628829 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Michelle Genois, Marie Plourde, Chantal Éthier, Gaétan Roy, Guy G. Poirier, Marc Ouellette, Jean‐Yves Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyExtrachromosomal DNARAD51AmpliconGeneticsRecombinaseLeishmania infantumHomologous recombinationGeneGenomeComputational biologyRecombinationPolymerase chain reactionVisceral leishmaniasisLeishmaniasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To achieve drug resistance Leishmania parasite alters gene copy number by using its repeated sequences widely distributed through the genome. Even though homologous recombination (HR) is ascribed to maintain genome stability, this eukaryote exploits this potent mechanism driven by the Rad51 recombinase to form beneficial extrachromosomal circular amplicons. Here, we provide insights on the formation of these circular amplicons by analyzing the functions of the Rad51 paralogs. We purified three Leishmania infantum Rad51 paralogs homologs (LiRad51-3, LiRad51-4 and LiRad51-6) all of which directly interact with LiRad51. LiRad51-3, LiRad51-4 and LiRad51-6 show differences in DNA binding and annealing capacities. Moreover, it is also noteworthy that LiRad51-3 and LiRad51-4 are able to stimulate Rad51-mediated D-loop formation. In addition, we succeed to inactivate the LiRad51-4 gene and report a decrease of circular amplicons in this mutant. The LiRad51-3 gene was found to be essential for cell viability. Thus, we propose that the LiRad51 paralogs play crucial functions in extrachromosomal circular DNA amplification to circumvent drug actions and preserve survival.

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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207