XRCC4 Protein Interactions with XRCC4-like Factor (XLF) Create an Extended Grooved Scaffold for DNA Ligation and Double Strand Break Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The XRCC4-like factor (XLF)-XRCC4 complex is essential for nonhomologous end joining, the major repair pathway for DNA double strand breaks in human cells. Yet, how XLF binds XRCC4 and impacts nonhomologous end joining functions has been enigmatic. Here, we report the XLF-XRCC4 complex crystal structure in combination with biophysical and mutational analyses to define the XLF-XRCC4 interactions. Crystal and solution structures plus mutations characterize alternating XRCC4 and XLF head domain interfaces forming parallel super-helical filaments. XLF Leu-115 ("Leu-lock") inserts into a hydrophobic pocket formed by XRCC4 Met-59, Met-61, Lys-65, Lys-99, Phe-106, and Leu-108 in synergy with pseudo-symmetric β-zipper hydrogen bonds to drive specificity. XLF C terminus and DNA enhance parallel filament formation. Super-helical XLF-XRCC4 filaments form a positively charged channel to bind DNA and align ends for efficient ligation. Collective results reveal how human XLF and XRCC4 interact to bind DNA, suggest consequences of patient mutations, and support a unified molecular mechanism for XLF-XRCC4 stimulation of DNA ligation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".