MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115958000 · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfg158

Compromised DNA Repair Enhances Sensitivity of the Yeast RNR3-lacZ Genotoxicity Testing System

2003· article· en· W2115958000 on OpenAlexaff
Xuming Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicological Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA repairNucleotide excision repairPostreplication repairBiologyDNA damageDNAlac operonBase excision repairGenotoxicitySaccharomyces cerevisiaeGeneSOS responseGeneticsMolecular biologyCell biologyChemistryPlasmid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RNR3-lacZ genotoxicity testing system was developed based on the induction of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae RNR3-lacZ reporter gene in response to a broad range of DNA-damaging agents. In order to enhance the sensitivity of the RNR3-lacZ system, several deletion mutant strains representing different repair pathways were created and examined for their effects on RNR3-lacZ expression. It was found that inactivation of different DNA repair pathways has profound effects on the DNA damage induction of RNR3 expression. Although deletion of MAG1 in the base excision repair pathway enhances the detection sensitivity to DNA-alkylating agents, and deletion of RAD2 in the nucleotide excision repair pathway enhances the detection sensitivity to ultraviolet and agents that produce bulky lesions, inactivation of genes involved in the recombination repair and postreplication repair variably reduces RNR3-lacZ induction. This study not only helps to establish a more sensitive genotoxicity testing system but also suggests that certain eukaryotic DNA repair pathways are required for gene regulation in response to DNA damage and probably serve as sensors in the signal transduction cascade.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicological SciencesSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207