DNA Damage Response During Chromatin Remodeling in Elongating Spermatids of Mice1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A precise packaging of the paternal genome during spermiogenesis is essential for fertilization and embryogenesis. Most of the nucleosomal DNA supercoiling must be eliminated in elongating spermatids (ES), and transient DNA strand breaks are observed that facilitate the process. Topoisomerases have been considered as ideal candidates for the removal of DNA supercoiling, but their catalytic activity, in the context of such a major chromatin remodeling, entails genetic risks. Using immunofluorescence, we confirmed that topoisomerase II beta (TOP2B) is the type II topoisomerase present in ES between steps 9 and 13. Interestingly, the detection of TOP2B was found coincident with detection of tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase 1 (TDP1), an enzyme known to resolve topoisomerase-mediated DNA damage. The presence of gamma-H2AX (also known as H2AFX) coincident with DNA strand breakage was also confirmed at these steps and indicates that a DNA damage response is triggered. Active DNA repair in ES was demonstrated using a fluorescent in situ DNA polymerase activity assay on squash preparations of staged tubules. In the context of haploid spermatids, any unresolved double-strand breaks, resulting from a failure in the rejoining process of TOP2B, must likely rely on the error-prone nonhomologous end joining, because homologous recombination cannot proceed in the absence of a sister chromatid. Because this process is part of the normal developmental program of the spermatids, dramatic consequences for the genomic integrity of the developing male gamete may arise should any alteration in the process occur.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".