MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068622543 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2013.05.026

The Ku Heterodimer and the Metabolism of Single-Ended DNA Double-Strand Breaks

2013· article· en· W2068622543 on OpenAlexafffund
Alessia Balestrini, Dejan Ristić, I. Dionne, X. Liu, Claire Wyman, Raymund J. Wellinger, John H.J. Petrini

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAmerican-Italian Cancer Foundation
KeywordsNucleaseDNABiologyReplisomeCell biologyGeneticsDNA replicationMolecular biologyCircular bacterial chromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-ended double-strand breaks (DSBs) are a common form of spontaneous DNA break, generated when the replisome encounters a discontinuity in the DNA template. Given their prevalence, understanding the mechanisms governing the fate(s) of single-ended DSBs is important. We describe the influence of the Ku heterodimer and Mre11 nuclease activity on processing of single-ended DSBs. Separation-of-function alleles of yku70 were derived that phenocopy Ku deficiency with respect to single-ended DSBs but remain proficient for NHEJ. The Ku mutants fail to regulate Exo1 activity, and bypass the requirement for Mre11 nuclease activity in the repair of camptothecin-induced single-ended DSBs. Ku mutants exhibited reduced affinity for DNA ends, manifest as both reduced end engagement and enhanced probability of diffusing inward on linear DNA. This study reveals an interplay between Ku and Mre11 in the metabolism of single-ended DSBs that is distinct from repair pathway choice at double-ended DSBs.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations56
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207