MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129429043 · doi:10.1093/genetics/162.4.1583

Differential Processing of Leading- and Lagging-Strand Ends at <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> Telomeres Revealed by the Absence of Rad27p Nuclease

2002· article· en· W2129429043 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Parenteau, Raymund J. Wellinger

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOkazaki fragmentsBiologyTelomereSaccharomyces cerevisiaeTelomerasePlasmidNucleaseGeneticsDNA replicationMutantGeneCell biologyMolecular biologyEukaryotic DNA replication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains lacking the Rad27p nuclease, a homolog of the mammalian FEN-1 protein, display an accumulation of extensive single-stranded G-tails at telomeres. Furthermore, the lengths of telomeric repeats become very heterogeneous. These phenotypes could be the result of aberrant Okazaki fragment processing of the C-rich strand, elongation of the G-rich strand by telomerase, or an abnormally high activity of the nucleolytic activities required to process leading-strand ends. To distinguish among these possibilities, we analyzed strains carrying a deletion of the RAD27 gene and also lacking genes required for in vivo telomerase activity. The results show that double-mutant strains died more rapidly than strains lacking only telomerase components. Furthermore, in such strains there is a significant reduction in the signals for G-tails as compared to those detected in rad27delta cells. The results from studies of the replication intermediates of a linear plasmid in rad27delta cells are consistent with the idea that only one end of the plasmid acquires extensive G-tails, presumably the end made by lagging-strand synthesis. These data further support the notion that chromosome ends have differential requirements for end processing, depending on whether the ends were replicated by leading- or lagging-strand synthesis.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations48
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207