MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139442550 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.01.009

Breast Cancer Proteins PALB2 and BRCA2 Stimulate Polymerase η in Recombination-Associated DNA Synthesis at Blocked Replication Forks

2014· article· en· W2139442550 on OpenAlexafffund
Rémi Buisson, Niraj Joshi, Joris Pauty, Ranjan Maity, Weixing Zhao, Yan Coulombe, Patrick Sung, Jean‐Yves Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPALB2Homologous recombinationBiologyDNA replicationDNA repairDNA polymeraseCell biologyPolymeraseGeneticsDNAMolecular biologyMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One envisioned function of homologous recombination (HR) is to find a template for DNA synthesis from the resected 3'-OH molecules that occur during double-strand break (DSB) repair at collapsed replication forks. However, the interplay between DNA synthesis and HR remains poorly understood in higher eukaryotic cells. Here, we reveal functions for the breast cancer proteins BRCA2 and PALB2 at blocked replication forks and show a role for these proteins in stimulating polymerase η (Polη) to initiate DNA synthesis. PALB2, BRCA2, and Polη colocalize at stalled or collapsed replication forks after hydroxyurea treatment. Moreover, PALB2 and BRCA2 interact with Polη and are required to sustain the recruitment of Polη at blocked replication forks. PALB2 and BRCA2 stimulate Polη-dependent DNA synthesis on D loop substrates. We conclude that PALB2 and BRCA2, in addition to their functions in D loop formation, play crucial roles in the initiation of recombination-associated DNA synthesis by Polη-mediated DNA repair.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations88
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207