MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135435732 · doi:10.1534/genetics.105.042473

Mutations in the <i>extra sex combs</i> and <i>Enhancer of Polycomb</i> Genes Increase Homologous Recombination in Somatic Cells of <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>

2006· article· en· W2135435732 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela M Holmes, Kelly Weedmark, Gregory B. Gloor

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsDrosophila melanogasterHomologous recombinationSomatic cellGeneRecombinationEnhancerDrosophila (subgenus)Homologous chromosomeGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We found that heterozygous mutant alleles of E(Pc) and esc increased homologous recombination from an allelic template in somatic cells in a P-element-induced double-strand break repair assay. Flies heterozygous for mutant alleles of these genes showed increased genome stability and decreased levels of apoptosis in imaginal discs and a concomitant increase in survival following ionizing radiation. We propose that this was caused by a genomewide increase in homologous recombination in somatic cells. A double mutant of E(Pc) and esc had no additive effect, showing that these genes act in the same pathway. Finally, we found that a heterozygous deficiency for the histone deacetylase, Rpd3, masked the radiation-resistant phenotype of both esc and E(Pc) mutants. These findings provide evidence for a gene dosage-dependent interaction between the esc/E(z) complex and the Tip60 histone acetyltransferase complex. We propose that esc and E(Pc) mutants enhance homologous recombination by modulating the histone acetylation status of histone H4 at the double-strand break.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207