MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111760472 · doi:10.1091/mbc.e03-06-0444

TopBP1 and ATR Colocalization at Meiotic Chromosomes: Role of TopBP1/Cut5 in the Meiotic Recombination Checkpoint

2004· article· en· W2111760472 on OpenAlexaff
David Perera, Livia Pérez-Hidalgo, Peter B. Møens, Kaarina Reini, Nicholas D. Lakin, Juhani E. Syväoja, Pedro A. San-Segundo, Raimundo Freire

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology of the Cell · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSyöpäjärjestötAcademy of Finland
KeywordsBiologyG2-M DNA damage checkpointSynapsisHomologous recombinationMeiosisCHEK1Cell biologyGeneticsGenetic recombinationSchizosaccharomyces pombeDNA repairCell cycle checkpointMutantDNACell cycleRecombinationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammalian TopBP1 is a BRCT domain-containing protein whose function in mitotic cells is linked to replication and DNA damage checkpoint. Here, we study its possible role during meiosis in mice. TopBP1 foci are abundant during early prophase I and localize mainly to histone gamma-H2AX-positive domains, where DNA double-strand breaks (required to initiate recombination) occur. Strikingly, TopBP1 showed a pattern almost identical to that of ATR, a PI3K-like kinase involved in mitotic DNA damage checkpoint. In the synapsis-defective Fkbp6(-/-) mouse, TopBP1 heavily stains unsynapsed regions of chromosomes. We also tested whether Schizosaccharomyces pombe Cut5 (the TopBP1 homologue) plays a role in the meiotic recombination checkpoint, like spRad3, the ATR homologue. Indeed, we found that a cut5 mutation suppresses the checkpoint-dependent meiotic delay of a meiotic recombination defective mutant, indicating a direct role of the Cut5 protein in the meiotic checkpoint. Our findings suggest that ATR and TopBP1 monitor meiotic recombination and are required for activation of the meiotic recombination checkpoint.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations87
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology of the CellSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207