MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125996824 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a010157

Replication-Fork Dynamics

2013· review· en· W2125996824 on OpenAlexaff
Karl E. Duderstadt, Rodrigo Reyes‐Lamothe, Antoine M. van Oijen, David J. Sherratt

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekWellcome Trust
KeywordsReplisomeBiologyReplication (statistics)Pre-replication complexDNA replicationOrigin recognition complexComputational biologyMinichromosome maintenanceCell biologyEukaryotic DNA replicationGeneticsDNAVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of all organisms depends on the coordination of enzymatic events within large multiprotein replisomes that duplicate chromosomes. Whereas the structure and function of many core replisome components have been clarified, the timing and order of molecular events during replication remains obscure. To better understand the replication mechanism, new methods must be developed that allow for the observation and characterization of short-lived states and dynamic events at single replication forks. Over the last decade, great progress has been made toward this goal with the development of novel DNA nanomanipulation and fluorescence imaging techniques allowing for the direct observation of replication-fork dynamics both reconstituted in vitro and in live cells. This article reviews these new single-molecule approaches and the revised understanding of replisome operation that has emerged.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.008

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in BiologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207