Structure and identification of ADP-ribose recognition motifs of APLF and role in the DNA damage response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases regulates the interaction of many DNA damage and repair factors with sites of DNA strand lesions. The interaction of these factors with poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) is mediated by specific domains, including the recently identified PAR-binding zinc finger (PBZ) domain. However, the mechanism governing these interactions is unclear. To better understand the PBZ-PAR interaction, we performed a detailed examination of the representative PBZ-containing protein involved in the DNA damage response, aprataxin polynucleotide-kinase-like factor (APLF), which possesses two tandem PBZ domains. Here we present structural and biochemical studies that identify Y381/Y386 and Y423/Y428 residues in the conserved C(M/P)Y and CYR motifs within each APLF PBZ domain that are critical for the interaction with the adenine ring of ADP-ribose. Basic residues (R387 and R429 in the first and second PBZ domains, respectively) coordinate additional interactions with the phosphate backbone of ADP-ribose, suggesting that APLF binds to multiple ADP-ribose residues along PAR polymers. These C(M/P)Y and CYR motifs form a basic/hydrophobic pocket within a variant zinc finger structure and are required for APLF recruitment to sites of DNA damage in vivo.
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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".