MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069651213 · doi:10.1002/eji.200425455

Phosphorylation of Artemis following irradiation‐induced DNA damage

2004· article· en· W2069651213 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Poinsignon, Régina de Chasseval, Sébastien Soubeyrand, Despina Moshous, Alain Fischer, Robert J.G. Haché, Jean‐Pierre de Villartay

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsV(D)J recombinationPhosphorylationBiologyDNA damageDNA repairDNACell biologyDNA-PKcsDNA mismatch repairDNA repair protein XRCC4Molecular biologyAtaxia-telangiectasiaGeneGeneticsRecombination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artemis is a DNA repair factor required for V(D)J recombination, repair of DNA damage induced by ionizing radiation (IR) or radiomimetic drugs, and the maintenance of genome integrity. During V(D)J recombination, Artemis participates in the resolution of hairpin-sealed coding ends, a step crucial to the constitution of the gene encoding for the antigen receptor of lymphocytes. The precise role of Artemis in the repair of IR-induced DNA damage remains to be elucidated. Here we show that Artemis is constitutively phosphorylated in cultured cells and undergoes additional phosphorylation events after irradiation. The IR-induced phosphorylation is mainly, although not solely, dependent on Ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated kinase (ATM). The physiological role of these phosphorylation events remains unknown, as in vitro-generated Artemis mutants, which present impaired IR-induced phosphorylation, still display an activity sufficient to complement the V(D)J recombination defect and the increased radiosensibility of Artemis-deficient cells. Thus, Artemis is an effector of DNA repair that can be phosphorylated by ATM, and possibly by DNA-PKcs and ATR depending upon the type of DNA damage.

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)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations61
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207