A conserved lysine residue of plant Whirly proteins is necessary for higher order protein assembly and protection against DNA damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All organisms have evolved specialized DNA repair mechanisms in order to protect their genome against detrimental lesions such as DNA double-strand breaks. In plant organelles, these damages are repaired either through recombination or through a microhomology-mediated break-induced replication pathway. Whirly proteins are modulators of this second pathway in both chloroplasts and mitochondria. In this precise pathway, tetrameric Whirly proteins are believed to bind single-stranded DNA and prevent spurious annealing of resected DNA molecules with other regions in the genome. In this study, we add a new layer of complexity to this model by showing through atomic force microscopy that tetramers of the potato Whirly protein WHY2 further assemble into hexamers of tetramers, or 24-mers, upon binding long DNA molecules. This process depends on tetramer-tetramer interactions mediated by K67, a highly conserved residue among plant Whirly proteins. Mutation of this residue abolishes the formation of 24-mers without affecting the protein structure or the binding to short DNA molecules. Importantly, we show that an Arabidopsis Whirly protein mutated for this lysine is unable to rescue the sensitivity of a Whirly-less mutant plant to a DNA double-strand break inducing agent.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".