On the Nature and Origin of DNA Strand Breaks in Elongating Spermatids1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transient DNA strand breaks are generated in the whole population of elongating spermatids and are perfectly coincident with histone H4 hyperacetylation at chromatin-remodeling steps. Given the limited DNA repair capacity of elongating spermatids, chromatin remodeling may present a threat to genetic integrity of the male gamete. The nature of the DNA strand breakage, the enzymes involved, and the role of H4 hyperacetylation in the process must be determined to further investigate the potential mutagenic consequences of this important transition. We used the metachromatic dye acridine orange in combination with fluorescence-activated cell sorting to achieve separation of spermatids according to their condensation state. Using single-cell electrophoresis (comet assay), in both alkaline and neutral conditions, we demonstrated that double-stranded breaks account for most of the DNA fragmentation observed in purified elongating spermatids. DNA strand breaks were generated in round spermatids as a result of de novo histone hyperacetylation induced by trichostatin A, whereas an increase in endogenous DNA strand breaks was observed in elongating spermatids. Using a short-term culture of testicular cells, we demonstrated that DNA strand breaks in spermatids were abolished on incubation with two functionally different topoisomerase II inhibitors. Hence, topoisomerase II appears as the unique enzyme responsible for the transient double-stranded breaks in elongating spermatids but depends on histone hyperacetylation for its activity.
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 | 0.001 | 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".