The Cell Division Cycle Puts Up with Unprotected Telomeres: Cell Cycle Regulated Telomere Uncapping as a Means to Achieve Telomere Homeostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telomeres have unique properties that distinguish natural chromosomal ends from accidental DNA double-strand interruptions arising elsewhere in the genome. However, the slightest perturbation in their unique organization may obliterate this distinction, channelling chromosomal ends into unwarranted repair events, eventually causing genome instability. Recent results revealed that the processing of both dysfunctional telomeres and accidental DNA double strand breaks (DSB) by DNA repair activities is tightly regulated in a cell cycle-dependent manner by the S phase-promoting cell cycle kinase CDK1 (Clb-Cdc28p). Surprisingly, the cell cycle determinants and the timing of processing at unprotected telomeres closely match the requirements of other transactions that occur at telomeres. In particular, the replenishment of telomeric repeats by telomerase is tightly linked to cell cycle progression and occurs in the same interval. Furthermore, cell survival in the absence of essential telomeric proteins being dependent on telomere-telomere recombination mechanisms may require a similar regulation. Thus, a temporally limited state of telomere dysfunction leading to chromosome end processing may represent a well-governed cell cycle event that constitutes an integral part of the assembly of a new functional telomere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".