MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086098426 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0405762101

Mixing active-site components: A recipe for the unique enzymatic activity of a telomere resolvase

2004· article· en· W2086098426 on OpenAlexafffund
Troy Bankhead, George Chaconas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTn3 transposonRecombinaseTransposaseBiologyTelomereDNAActive siteNucleaseBinding siteMutantBiochemistryGeneticsEnzymeTransposable elementRecombinationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ResT protein, a telomere resolvase from Borrelia burgdorferi, processes replication intermediates into linear replicons with hairpin ends by using a catalytic mechanism similar to that for tyrosine recombinases and type IB topoisomerases. We have identified in ResT a hairpin binding region typically found in cut-and-paste transposases. We show that substitution of residues within this region results in a decreased ability of these mutants to catalyze telomere resolution. However, the mutants are capable of resolving heteroduplex DNA substrates designed to allow spontaneous destabilization and prehairpin formation. These findings support the existence of a hairpin binding region in ResT, the only known occurrence outside a transposase. The combination of transposase-like and tyrosine-recombinase-like domains found in ResT indicates the use of a composite active site and helps explain the unique breakage-and-reunion reaction observed with this protein. Comparison of the ResT sequence with other known telomere resolvases suggests that a hairpin binding motif is a common feature in this class of enzyme; the sequence motif also appears in the RAG recombinases. Finally, our data support a mechanism of action whereby ResT induces prehairpin formation before the DNA cleavage step.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207