Expression levels of DNA replication and repair genes predict regional somatic repeat instability in the brain but are not altered by polyglutamine disease protein expression or age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expansion of CAG/CTG trinucleotide repeats causes numerous inherited neurological disorders, including Huntington's disease (HD), several spinocerebellar ataxias and myotonic dystrophy type 1. Expanded repeats are genetically unstable with a propensity to further expand when transmitted from parents to offspring. For many alleles with expanded repeats, extensive somatic mosaicism has been documented. For CAG repeat diseases, dramatic instability has been documented in the striatum, with larger expansions noted with advancing age. In contrast, only modest instability occurs in the cerebellum. Using microarray expression analysis, we sought to identify the genetic basis of these regional instability differences by comparing gene expression in the striatum and cerebellum of aged wild-type C57BL/6J mice. We identified eight candidate genes enriched in cerebellum, and validated four--Pcna, Rpa1, Msh6 and Fen1--along with a highly associated interactor, Lig1. We also explored whether expression levels of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins are altered in a line of HD transgenic mice, R6/2, that is known to show pronounced regional repeat instability. Compared with wild-type littermates, MMR expression levels were not significantly altered in R6/2 mice regardless of age. Interestingly, expression levels of these candidates were significantly increased in the cerebellum of control and HD human samples in comparison to striatum. Together, our data suggest that elevated expression levels of DNA replication and repair proteins in cerebellum may act as a safeguard against repeat instability, and may account for the dramatically reduced somatic instability present in this brain region, compared with the marked instability observed in the striatum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".