MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043218445 · doi:10.1107/s1744309111033549

Crystallization and preliminary X-ray diffraction analysis of the human XRCC4–XLF complex

2011· article· en· W2043218445 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara N. Andres, M.S. Junop

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization Communications · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersBrookhaven National LaboratoryNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA repair protein XRCC4CrystallographyCrystallizationMaterials scienceDiffractionChemistryDNADNA repairPhysicsBiochemistryDNA mismatch repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

XRCC4 and XLF are key proteins in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks through nonhomologous end-joining. Together, they form a complex that stimulates the ligation of double-strand breaks. Owing to the suggested filamentous nature of this complex, structural studies via X-ray crystallography have proven difficult. Multiple truncations of the XLF and XRCC4 proteins were cocrystallized, but yielded low-resolution diffraction (~20 Å). However, a combination of microseeding, dehydration and heavy metals improved the diffraction of XRCC4(Δ157)-XLF(Δ224) crystals to 3.9 Å resolution. Although molecular replacement alone was unable to produce a solution, when combined with the anomalous signal from tantalum bromide clusters initial phasing was successfully obtained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section F Structural Biology and Crystallization CommunicationsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207