Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activity affects its subcellular localization and DNA strand break rejoining.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) plays a crucial role in DNA repair. Modulation of its activity by stimulation or inhibition is considered as a potentially important strategy in clinical practice, especially to sensitize tumor cells to chemo- and radiotherapy through inhibition of DNA repair. Here we studied the effect of the three PARP inhibitors, 5-iodo-6-amino-benzopyrone (INH(2)BP), 1,5-isoquinolinediol (1,5-dihydroxyisoquinolinediol (1,5-IQD) and 8-hydroxy-2-methylquinazolin-4-[3H]one (NU1025), and for two of them the efficiency in slowing the rejoining of DNA strand breaks induced by H(2)O(2) was compared. Inhibition of PARP changed its intranuclear localization markedly; cells exposed to the inhibitor NU1025 showed a significant tendency to accumulate PARP in large foci, whereas in untreated cells its distribution was more uniform. The speed and efficiency of rejoining of H(2)O(2)-induced DNA strand breaks were lower in cells incubated with a PARP inhibitor, and the kinetics of rejoining were modulated in a different manner by each inhibitor. At a concentration of 100 microM the efficiency of the inhibitors could be ranked in the order NU1025 > IQD > INH(2)BP. The two first compounds were able to decrease the overall PARP activity below the level detected in control cells, while INH(2)BP showed up to 40% PARP activity after exposure to H(2)O(2).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".