Repair of DNA Strand Breaks in a Minichromosome In Vivo: Kinetics, Modeling, and Effects of Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To obtain an overall picture of the repair of DNA single and double strand breaks in a defined region of chromatin in vivo, we studied their repair in a ~170 kb circular minichromosome whose length and topology are analogous to those of the closed loops in genomic chromatin. The rate of repair of single strand breaks in cells irradiated with γ photons was quantitated by determining the sensitivity of the minichromosome DNA to nuclease S1, and that of double strand breaks by assaying the reformation of supercoiled DNA using pulsed field electrophoresis. Reformation of supercoiled DNA, which requires that all single strand breaks have been repaired, was not slowed detectably by the inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 NU1025 or 1,5-IQD. Repair of double strand breaks was slowed by 20-30% when homologous recombination was supressed by KU55933, caffeine, or siRNA-mediated depletion of Rad51 but was completely arrested by the inhibitors of nonhomologous end-joining wortmannin or NU7441, responses interpreted as reflecting competition between these repair pathways similar to that seen in genomic DNA. The reformation of supercoiled DNA was unaffected when topoisomerases I or II, whose participation in repair of strand breaks has been controversial, were inhibited by the catalytic inhibitors ICRF-193 or F11782. Modeling of the kinetics of repair provided rate constants and showed that repair of single strand breaks in minichromosome DNA proceeded independently of repair of double strand breaks. The simplicity of quantitating strand breaks in this minichromosome provides a usefull system for testing the efficiency of new inhibitors of their repair, and since the sequence and structural features of its DNA and its transcription pattern have been studied extensively it offers a good model for examining other aspects of DNA breakage and repair.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".