MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132902835 · doi:10.1101/gad.1869110

De novo telomere formation is suppressed by the Mec1-dependent inhibition of Cdc13 accumulation at DNA breaks

2010· article· en· W2132902835 on OpenAlexafffund
Wei Zhang, Daniel Durocher

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTelomereBiologyTelomeraseTelomere-binding proteinDNACell biologyPhosphorylationPhosphataseDNA damageMolecular biologyGeneticsDNA-binding proteinGeneTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are a threat to cell survival and genome integrity. In addition to canonical DNA repair systems, DSBs can be converted to telomeres by telomerase. This process, herein termed telomere healing, endangers genome stability, since it usually results in chromosome arm loss. Therefore, cells possess mechanisms that prevent the untimely action of telomerase on DSBs. Here we report that Mec1, the ATR ortholog, couples the detection of DNA ends with the inhibition of telomerase. Mec1 inhibits telomere healing by phosphorylating Cdc13 on its S306 residue, a phosphorylation event that suppresses Cdc13 accumulation at DSBs. Conversely, telomere addition at accidental breaks is promoted by Pph3, the yeast protein phosphatase 4 (PP4). Pph3 is itself modulated by Rrd1, an activator of PP2A family phosphatases. Rrd1 and Pph3 oppose Cdc13 S306 phosphorylation and are necessary for the efficient accumulation of Cdc13 at DNA breaks. These studies therefore identify a mechanism by which the ATR family of kinases enforces genome integrity, and a process that underscores the contribution of Cdc13 to the fate of DNA ends.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations87
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207