Homologous Recombination Is Required for Genome Stability in the Absence of DOG-1 in<i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In C. elegans, DOG-1 prevents deletions that initiate in polyG/polyC tracts (G/C tracts), most likely by unwinding secondary structures that can form in G/C tracts during lagging-strand DNA synthesis. We have used the dog-1 mutant to assay the in vivo contribution of various repair genes to the maintenance of G/C tracts. Here we show that DOG-1 and the BLM ortholog, HIM-6, act synergistically during replication; simultaneous loss of function of both genes results in replicative stress and an increase in the formation of small deletions that initiate in G/C tracts. Similarly, we demonstrate that the C. elegans orthologs of the homologous recombination repair genes BARD1, RAD51, and XPF and the trans-lesion synthesis polymerases poleta and polkappa contribute to the prevention of deletions in dog-1 mutants. Finally, we provide evidence that the small deletions generated in the dog-1 background are not formed through homologous recombination, nucleotide excision repair, or nonhomologous end-joining mechanisms, but appear to result from a mutagenic repair mechanism acting at G/C tracts. Our data support the hypothesis that absence of DOG-1 leads to replication fork stalling that can be repaired by deletion-free or deletion-prone mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".