MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062331936 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkp041

The why and how of DNA unlinking

2009· review· en· W2062331936 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyDNADNA replicationGeneGeneticsTopoisomeraseComputational biologyDNA sequencingGenomeTranscription (linguistics)Transcription factorCell biologyTopology (electrical circuits)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nucleotide sequence of DNA is the repository of hereditary information. Yet, it is now clear that the DNA itself plays an active role in regulating the ability of the cell to extract its information. Basic biological processes, including control of gene transcription, faithful DNA replication and segregation, maintenance of the genome and cellular differentiation are subject to the conformational and topological properties of DNA in addition to the regulation imparted by the sequence itself. How do these DNA features manifest such striking effects and how does the cell regulate them? In this review, we describe how misregulation of DNA topology can lead to cellular dysfunction. We then address how cells prevent these topological problems. We close with a discussion on recent theoretical advances indicating that the topological problems, themselves, can provide the cues necessary for their resolution by type-2 topoisomerases.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.304 · 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