Homologous Recombination Is Required for Genome Stability in the Absence of DOG-1 in<i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it