MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120136725 · doi:10.1111/mmi.12389

Trapping and visualizing intermediate steps in the mismatch repair pathway <i>in vivo</i>

2013· article· en· W2120136725 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin S. Lenhart, Monica C. Pillon, Alba Guarné, Lyle A. Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHorace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of MichiganUniversity of MichiganNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDNA mismatch repairBiologyDNA repairMutantDNACell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During mismatch repair, MutS is responsible for mismatch detection and the recruitment of MutL to the mismatch through a mechanism that is unknown in most organisms. Here, we identified a discrete site on MutS that is occupied by MutL in Bacillus subtilis. The MutL binding site is composed of two adjacent phenylalanine residues located laterally in an exposed loop of MutS. Disruption of this site renders MutS defective in binding MutL in vitro and in vivo, while also eliminating mismatch repair. Analysis of MutS repair complexes in vivo shows that MutS mutants defective in interaction with MutL are 'trapped' in a repetitive loading response. Furthermore, these mutant MutS repair complexes persist on DNA away from the DNA polymerase, suggesting that MutS remains loaded on mismatch proximal DNA awaiting arrival of MutL. We also provide evidence that MutS and MutL interact independent of mismatch binding by MutS in vivo and in vitro, suggesting that MutL can transiently probe MutS to determine if MutS is mismatch bound. Together, these data provide insights into the mechanism that MutS employs to recruit MutL, and the consequences that ensue when MutL recruitment is blocked.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207