MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070309407 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000507

Subtle Alterations in PCNA-Partner Interactions Severely Impair DNA Replication and Repair

2010· article· en· W2070309407 on OpenAlexaff
Yearit Fridman, Niv Palgi, Daniel Dovrat, Shay Ben‐Aroya, Philip Hieter, Amir Aharoni

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
FundersIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyProliferating cell nuclear antigenDNA replicationGeneticsRobustness (evolution)DNA repairCell biologyDNA damagePhenotypeMutantGeneDNAComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The robustness of complex biological processes in the face of environmental and genetic perturbations is a key biological trait. However, while robustness has been extensively studied, little is known regarding the fragility of biological processes. Here, we have examined the susceptibility of DNA replication and repair processes mediated by the proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Using protein directed evolution, biochemical, and genetic approaches, we have generated and characterized PCNA mutants with increased affinity for several key partners of the PCNA-partner network. We found that increases in PCNA-partner interaction affinities led to severe in vivo phenotypic defects. Surprisingly, such defects are much more severe than those induced by complete abolishment of the respective interactions. Thus, the subtle and tunable nature of these affinity perturbations produced different phenotypic effects than realized with traditional "on-off" analysis using gene knockouts. Our findings indicate that biological systems can be robust to one set of perturbations yet fragile to others.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207