Control of transposase activity within a transpososome by the configuration of the flanking DNA segment of the transposon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multiple steps of DNA transposition take place within a large complex called the transpososome, in which a pair of transposon DNA ends are synapsed by a multimer of the transposase protein. The final step, a DNA strand transfer reaction that joins the transposon ends to the target DNA strands, entails no net change in the number of high-energy chemical bonds. Physiology demands that, despite remaining stably associated with the transpososome, the strand transfer products undergo neither the reverse reaction nor any further cleavage reactions. Accordingly, when the Mu or Tn10 strand transfer complex was produced in vitro through transposase-catalyzed reaction steps, reverse reactions were undetectable. In contrast, when the Mu or Tn10 strand transfer complexes were assembled from DNA already having the structure of the strand transfer product, we detected a reaction that resembled reversal of target DNA strand transfer. The stereoselectivity of phosphorothioate-containing substrates indicated that this reaction proceeds as the pseudoreversal of the normal target DNA strand transfer step. Comparison of the reactivity of closely related Mu substrate DNA structures indicated that the configuration of the flanking DNA outside of the transposon sequence plays a key role in preventing the transposon end cleavage reaction after the strand transfer step.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".