MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086702526 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m411864200

DNA Polymerase λ Mediates a Back-up Base Excision Repair Activity in Extracts of Mouse Embryonic Fibroblasts

2005· article· en· W2086702526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena K. Braithwaite, Rajendra Prasad, David D. Shock, Esther W. Hou, William A. Beard, Samuel H. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryonic stem cellBase excision repairDNA polymerasePolymeraseNucleotide excision repairMolecular biologyDNABiologyDNA repairCell biologyChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammalian DNA polymerase (pol) lambda is a member of the X-family of DNA polymerases and has striking enzymatic and structural similarities to mammalian DNA pol beta. Because pol beta provides two important enzymatic activities for base excision repair (BER), we examined whether pol lambda might also contribute to BER. We used extracts from mouse embryonic fibroblasts representing wild-type and null genotypes for pol beta and pol lambda. In combination with neutralizing antibodies against pol beta and pol lambda, our results show a BER deficiency in the pol lambda -/- cell extract compared with extract from isogenic wild-type cells. In addition, the pol lambda antibody strongly reduced in vitro BER in the pol beta -/- cell extract. These data indicate that pol lambda is able to contribute to BER in mouse fibroblast cell extract.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations151
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207