MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160355632 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkp617

Transient dsDNA breaks during pre-replication complex assembly

2009· article· en· W2160355632 on OpenAlexafffund
Emmanouil Rampakakis, Maria Zannis‐Hadjopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of PatrasFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityMcGill UniversityVanderbilt University Medical CenterVanderbilt University
KeywordsBiologyDNA replicationOrigin recognition complexReplication protein AEukaryotic DNA replicationTopoisomeraseDNAReplication factor CControl of chromosome duplicationCell biologyPre-replication complexDNA repairMolecular biologyDNA replication factor CDT1Licensing factorGeneDNA-binding proteinGeneticsTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initiation of DNA replication involves the ordered assembly of the multi-protein pre-replicative complex (pre-RC) during G(1) phase. Previously, DNA topoisomerase II (topo II) was shown to associate with the DNA replication origin located in the lamin B2 gene locus in a cell-cycle-modulated manner. Here we report that activation of both the early-firing lamin B2 and the late-firing hOrs8 human replication origins involves DNA topo II-dependent, transient, site-specific dsDNA-break formation. Topo IIbeta in complex with the DNA repair protein Ku associates in vivo and in vitro with the pre-RC region, introducing dsDNA breaks in a biphasic manner, during early and mid-G(1) phase. Inhibition of topo II activity interferes with the pre-RC assembly resulting in prolonged G(1) phase. The data mechanistically link DNA topo IIbeta-dependent dsDNA breaks and the components of the DNA repair machinery with the initiation of DNA replication and suggest an important role for DNA topology in origin activation.

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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207