A cellular defense pathway regulating transcription through poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation in response to DNA damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA damage is known to trigger key cellular defense pathways such as those involved in DNA repair. Here we provide evidence for a previously unrecognized pathway regulating transcription in response to DNA damage and show that this regulation is mediated by the abundant nuclear enzyme poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. We found that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase reduced the rate of transcription elongation by RNA polymerase II, suggesting that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase negatively regulates transcription, possibly through the formation of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-RNA complexes. In damaged cells, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase binds to DNA breaks and automodifies itself in the presence of NAD(+), resulting in poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inactivation. We found that automodification of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in response to DNA damage resulted in the up-regulation of transcription, presumably because automodified poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase molecules were released from transcripts, thereby relieving the block on transcription. Because agents that damage DNA damage RNA as well, up-regulation of RNA synthesis in response to DNA damage may provide cells with a mechanism to compensate for the loss of damaged transcripts and may be critical for cell survival after exposure to DNA-damaging agents.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".