MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055596436 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m704867200

XRCC1 Stimulates Polynucleotide Kinase by Enhancing Its Damage Discrimination and Displacement from DNA Repair Intermediates

2007· article· en· W2055596436 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajam S. Mani, Mesfin Fanta, Feridoun Karimi‐Busheri, Elizabeth T. Silver, César A. Virgen, Keith W. Caldecott, Carol E. Cass, Michael Weinfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsXRCC1DNABiochemistryDNA repairDNA damagePolynucleotidePhosphataseBiologyEnzymeMolecular biologyChemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human polynucleotide kinase (hPNK) is required for processing and rejoining DNA strand break termini. The 5'-DNA kinase and 3'-phosphatase activities of hPNK can be stimulated by the "scaffold" protein XRCC1, but the mechanism remains to be fully elucidated. Using a variety of fluorescence techniques, we examined the interaction of hPNK with XRCC1 and substrates that model DNA single-strand breaks. hPNK binding to substrates with 5'-OH termini was only approximately 5-fold tighter than that to identical DNA molecules with 5'-phosphate termini, suggesting that hPNK remains bound to the product of its enzymatic activity. The presence of XRCC1 did not influence the binding of hPNK to substrates with 5'-OH termini, but sharply reduced the interaction of hPNK with DNA bearing a 5'-phosphate terminus. These data, together with kinetic data obtained at limiting enzyme concentration, indicate a dual function for the interaction of XRCC1 with hPNK. First, XRCC1 enhances the capacity of hPNK to discriminate between strand breaks with 5'-OH termini and those with 5'-phosphate termini; and second, XRCC1 stimulates hPNK activity by displacing hPNK from the phosphorylated DNA product.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations49
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207