MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139732980 · doi:10.1080/0955300021000020111

Comparison of repair and rejoining fidelity between two isogenic human ovarian carcinoma cell lines

2002· article· en· W2139732980 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Howley, G. P. Raaphorst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Radiation Exposure
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosensitivityBiologyDNA damageDNA repairCell cultureDNACellCell cycleMolecular biologyCancer researchGeneticsRadiation therapyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The difference in radiosensitivity between two isogenic tumour cell lines was evaluated to determine whether factors such as sublethal and potentially damage repair, DNA double-strand break repair and fidelity of repair can be related to differences in radiosensitivity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cell lines used were the ovarian carcinoma A2780s and a radiation-resistant derivative A2780cp. Radiation response was measured in terms of cell survival, recovery of sublethal (SLD) and potentially lethal damage (PLD), induction of and recovery of DNA strand breaks, and fidelity of DNA repair using a cell-free plasmid assay. RESULTS: While A2780cp was more resistant to radiation than A2780s, it showed less ability for recovery of SLD and PLD. DNA strand-break induction was the same for both cell lines, while only at very high doses did A2780cp show greater DNA strand-break recovery than A2780s. Fidelity of rejoining DNA was significantly higher in the A2780cp cell line. CONCLUSION: The difference in radiosensitivity between these two cell lines was not related to recovery of PLD or SLD or to the induction of DNA damage. It appears that fidelity of DNA rejoining, which was significantly higher in the resistant cell line, may be related to the difference in radiosensitivity.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicEffects of Radiation ExposureFrench-language works237,207