In Vitro (CTG)·(CAG) Expansions and Deletions by Human Cell Extracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism of disease-associated (CTG)*(CAG) expansion may involve DNA replication slippage, replication direction, Okazaki fragment processing, recombination, or repair. A length-dependent bias for expansions is observed in humans affected by a trinucleotide repeat-associated disease. We developed an assay to test the effect of replication direction on (CTG)*(CAG) instabilities incurred during in vitro (SV40) DNA replication mediated by human cell extracts. This system recapitulates the bias for expansions observed in humans. Replication by HeLa cell extracts generated expansions and deletions that depended upon repeat tract length and the direction of replication. Templates with 79 repeats yielded predominantly expansions (CAG as lagging strand template) or predominantly deletions (CTG as lagging strand template). Templates containing 17 repeats were stable. Thus, replication direction determined the type of mutation. These results provide new insights into the orientation of replication effect upon repeat stability. This system will be useful in determining the contribution of specific human proteins to (CTG)*(CAG) expansions.
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 | 0.000 | 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".