A Double-Strand Break in a Chromosomal LINE Element Can Be Repaired by Gene Conversion with Various Endogenous LINE Elements in Mouse Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A double-strand break (DSB) in the mammalian genome has been shown to be a very potent signal for the cell to activate repair processes. Two different types of repair have been identified in mammalian cells. Broken ends can be rejoined with or without loss or addition of DNA or, alternatively, a homologous template can be used to repair the break. For most genomic sequences the latter event would involve allelic sequences present on the sister chromatid or homologous chromosome. However, since more than 30% of our genome consists of repetitive sequences, these would have the option of using nonallelic sequences for homologous repair. This could have an impact on the evolution of these sequences and of the genome itself. We have designed an assay to look at the repair of DSBs in LINE-1 (L1) elements which number 10(5) copies distributed throughout the genome of all mammals. We introduced into the genome of mouse epithelial cells an L1 element with an I-SceI endonuclease site. We induced DSBs at the I-SceI site and determined their mechanism of repair. We found that in over 95% of cases, the DSBs were repaired by an end-joining process. However, in almost 1% of cases, we found strong evidence for repair involving gene conversion with various endogenous L1 elements, with some being used preferentially. In particular, the T(F) family and the L1Md-A2 subfamily, which are the most active in retrotransposition, appeared to be contributing the most in this process. The degree of homology did not seem to be a determining factor in the selection of the endogenous elements used for repair but may be based instead on accessibility. Considering their abundance and dispersion, gene conversion between repetitive elements may be occurring frequently enough to be playing a role in their evolution.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".