Mms1 and Mms22 stabilize the replisome during replication stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mms1 and Mms22 form a Cul4(Ddb1)-like E3 ubiquitin ligase with the cullin Rtt101. In this complex, Rtt101 is bound to the substrate-specific adaptor Mms22 through a linker protein, Mms1. Although the Rtt101(Mms1/Mms22) ubiquitin ligase is important in promoting replication through damaged templates, how it does so has yet to be determined. Here we show that mms1Δ and mms22Δ cells fail to properly regulate DNA replication fork progression when replication stress is present and are defective in recovery from replication fork stress. Consistent with a role in promoting DNA replication, we find that Mms1 is enriched at sites where replication forks have stalled and that this localization requires the known binding partners of Mms1-Rtt101 and Mms22. Mms1 and Mms22 stabilize the replisome during replication stress, as binding of the fork-pausing complex components Mrc1 and Csm3, and DNA polymerase ε, at stalled replication forks is decreased in mms1Δ and mms22Δ. Taken together, these data indicate that Mms1 and Mms22 are important for maintaining the integrity of the replisome when DNA replication forks are slowed by hydroxyurea and thereby promote efficient recovery from replication stress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".