MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151003146 · doi:10.1093/nar/30.3.732

Suppression of genetic defects within the RAD6 pathway by srs2 is specific for error-free post-replication repair but not for damage-induced mutagenesis

2002· article· en· W2151003146 on OpenAlexafffund
Stacey Broomfield

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyHelicaseMutagenesisHomologous recombinationGeneticsPostreplication repairMutationDNA repairMutantDNA mismatch repairCell biologyDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

srs2 was isolated during a screen for mutants that could suppress the UV-sensitive phenotype of rad6 and rad18 cells. Genetic analyses led to a proposal that Srs2 acts to prevent the channeling of DNA replication-blocking lesions into homologous recombination. The phenotypes associated with srs2 indicate that the Srs2 protein acts to process lesions through RAD6-mediated post-replication repair (PRR) rather than recombination repair. The RAD6 pathway has been divided into three rather independent subpathways: two error-free (represented by RAD5 and POL30) and one error-prone (represented by REV3). In order to determine on which subpathways Srs2 acts, we performed comprehensive epistasis analyses; the experimental results indicate that the srs2 mutation completely suppresses both error-free PRR branches. Combined with UV-induced mutagenesis assays, we conclude that the Polzeta-mediated error-prone pathway is functional in the absence of Srs2; hence, Srs2 is not required for mutagenesis. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the helicase activity of Srs2 is probably required for the phenotypic suppression of error-free PRR defects. Taken together, our observations link error-free PRR to homologous recombination through the helicase activity of Srs2.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations67
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207