MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104123070 · doi:10.1242/jcs.114595

The RAD51 paralogs ensure cellular protection against mitotic defects and aneuploidy

2012· article· en· W2104123070 on OpenAlexafffund
Amélie Rodrigue, Yan Coulombe, Karine Jacquet, Jean-Phillipe Gagné, Céline Lopez‐Roques, Stéphane Gobeil, Guy G. Poirier, Jean‐Yves Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyRAD51MitosisXRCC3Chromosome segregationCell biologyCentrosomeHomologous recombinationAneuploidySpindle checkpointHolliday junctionDNA repairAnaphaseGeneticsCell cycleSpindle apparatusChromosomeCell divisionCellDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interplay between homologous DNA recombination and mitotic progression is poorly understood. The five RAD51 paralogs (RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, XRCC2 and XRCC3) are key enzymes for DNA double-strand break repair. In our search for specific functions of the various RAD51 paralogs, we found that inhibition of XRCC3 elicits checkpoint defects, while inhibition of RAD51B or RAD51C induces G2/M cell cycle arrest in HeLa cells. Using live-cell microscopy we show that in XRCC3-knockdown cells the spindle assembly checkpoint persists and there is a higher frequency of chromosome misalignments, anaphase bridges, and aneuploidy. We observed centrosome defects in the absence of XRCC3. While RAD51B and RAD51C act early in homologous recombination, XRCC3 functions jointly with GEN1 later in the pathway at the stage of Holliday junction resolution. Our data demonstrate that Holliday junction resolution has critical functions for preventing aberrant mitosis and aneuploidy in mitotic cells.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207