Crystal Structures of DNA-Whirly Complexes and Their Role in <i>Arabidopsis</i> Organelle Genome Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA double-strand breaks are highly detrimental to all organisms and need to be quickly and accurately repaired. Although several proteins are known to maintain plastid and mitochondrial genome stability in plants, little is known about the mechanisms of DNA repair in these organelles and the roles of specific proteins. Here, using ciprofloxacin as a DNA damaging agent specific to the organelles, we show that plastids and mitochondria can repair DNA double-strand breaks through an error-prone pathway similar to the microhomology-mediated break-induced replication observed in humans, yeast, and bacteria. This pathway is negatively regulated by the single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) binding proteins from the Whirly family, thus indicating that these proteins could contribute to the accurate repair of plant organelle genomes. To understand the role of Whirly proteins in this process, we solved the crystal structures of several Whirly-DNA complexes. These reveal a nonsequence-specific ssDNA binding mechanism in which DNA is stabilized between domains of adjacent subunits and rendered unavailable for duplex formation and/or protein interactions. Our results suggest a model in which the binding of Whirly proteins to ssDNA would favor accurate repair of DNA double-strand breaks over an error-prone microhomology-mediated break-induced replication repair pathway.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".