MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103178756 · doi:10.1093/genetics/162.3.1117

The Role of the Carboxyterminal Domain of RNA Polymerase II in Regulating Origins of DNA Replication in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

2002· article· en· W2103178756 on OpenAlexaff
Laura D. Gauthier, Renata Dziak, David J H Kramer, David Leishman, Xiaomin Song, Jason Ho, Maja Radovic, David L. Bentley, Krassimir Yankulov

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBiologyMinichromosome maintenanceMinichromosomeDNA replicationOrigin recognition complexRNA polymerase IIEukaryotic DNA replicationControl of chromosome duplicationTranscription (linguistics)Replication factor CGeneticsMolecular biologyCell biologyDNAGeneGene expressionPromoterChromatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MCM (minichromosome maintenance) proteins function as a replication licensing factor (RLF-M), which contributes to limiting initiation of DNA replication to once per cell cycle. In the present study we show that a truncation of the pol II CTD in a S. cerevisiae strain harboring a mutation in mcm5 partially reverses its ts phenotype and improves maintenance of CEN/ARS minichromosomes. We correlate this phenotype to effects on DNA replication rather than to effects on transcription or specific gene expression. We also demonstrate that a similar truncation of the CTD reduces minichromosome stability and impairs stimulation of DNA replication by trans-activators and that tethering of recombinant pol II CTD to an origin of replication has a significant stimulatory effect on minichromosome stability. Furthermore, we show that pol II is recruited to ARS1. We propose that in S. cerevisiae a mechanism of coordinating pol II transcription and DNA replication is mediated by the CTD of pol II.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207