MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091888464 · doi:10.1155/2012/425814

Fanconi Anemia Proteins and Their Interacting Partners: A Molecular Puzzle

2012· article· en· W2091888464 on OpenAlexafffund
Tagrid Kaddar, Madeleine Carreau

Bibliographic record

VenueAnemia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Blood ServicesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFanconi Anemia Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineFanconi anemiaComputational biologyAnemiaBioinformaticsGeneticsDNAInternal medicineDNA repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Fanconi anemia (FA) has been the subject of intense investigations, primarily in the DNA repair research field. Many discoveries have led to the notion of a canonical pathway, termed the FA pathway, where all FA proteins function sequentially in different protein complexes to repair DNA cross-link damages. Although a detailed architecture of this DNA cross-link repair pathway is emerging, the question of how a defective DNA cross-link repair process translates into the disease phenotype is unresolved. Other areas of research including oxidative metabolism, cell cycle progression, apoptosis, and transcriptional regulation have been studied in the context of FA, and some of these areas were investigated before the fervent enthusiasm in the DNA repair field. These other molecular mechanisms may also play an important role in the pathogenesis of this disease. In addition, several FA-interacting proteins have been identified with roles in these "other" nonrepair molecular functions. Thus, the goal of this paper is to revisit old ideas and to discuss protein-protein interactions related to other FA-related molecular functions to try to give the reader a wider perspective of the FA molecular puzzle.

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)0.000
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnemiaSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207