MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154051092 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m303134200

A Role for the Phosphorylation of hRad9 in Checkpoint Signaling

2003· article· en· W2154051092 on OpenAlexaff
Robert P. St.Onge, Blair D.A. Besley, Jennifer L. Pelley, Scott Davey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhosphorylationCancer researchG2-M DNA damage checkpointCell biologyCell cycle checkpointMedicineInternal medicineBiologyCancerCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integrity of the human genome is preserved by signal transduction pathways called checkpoints, which delay progression through the cell cycle when DNA damage is present. Three checkpoint proteins, hRad9, hRad1, and hHus1, form a proliferating cell nuclear antigen-like, heterotrimeric complex that has been proposed to function in the initial detection of DNA structural abnormalities. hRad9 is highly modified by phosphorylation, in a constitutive manner and in response to both DNA damage and cell cycle position. Here we present evidence that Thr292 of hRad9 is subject to Cdc2-dependent phosphorylation in mitosis. Furthermore, our data are also consistent with four other hRad9 phosphorylation sites (Ser277, Ser328, Ser336, and Thr355) being regulated in part by Cdc2. We also identify Ser387 as a novel site of hRad9 constitutive phosphorylation and show that phosphorylation at Ser387 is a prerequisite for one form of DNA damage-induced hyperphosphorylation of hRad9. Characterization of nonphosphorylatable mutants has revealed that hRad9 phosphorylation plays a critical role in checkpoint signaling. Overexpression of these mutants blocks the interaction between hRad9 and the DNA damage-responsive protein TopBP1 and impairs the cellular response to DNA damage during S phase.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations100
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207