Dinucleotide Repeat Expansion Catalyzed by Bacteriophage T4 DNA Polymerase in Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA replication normally occurs with high fidelity, but certain "slippery" regions of DNA with tracts of mono-, di-, and trinucleotide repeats are frequently mutation hot spots. We have developed an in vitro assay to study the mechanism of dinucleotide repeat expansion. The primer-template resembles a base excision repair substrate with a single nucleotide gap centered opposite a tract of nine CA repeats; nonrepeat sequences flank the dinucleotide repeats. DNA polymerases are expected to repair the gap, but further extension is possible if the DNA polymerase can displace the downstream oligonucleotide. We report here that the wild type bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase carries out gap and strand displacement replication and also catalyzes a dinucleotide expansion reaction. Repeat expansion was not detected for an exonuclease-deficient T4 DNA polymerase or for Escherichia coli DNA polymerase I. The dinucleotide repeat expansion reaction catalyzed by wild type T4 DNA polymerase required a downstream oligonucleotide to "stall" replication and 3' --> 5' exonuclease activity to remove the 3'-nonrepeat sequence adjacent to the repeat tract in the template strand. These results suggest that dinucleotide repeat expansion may be stimulated in vivo during DNA repair or during processing of Okazaki fragments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".