MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162439328 · doi:10.1101/gad.1182704

Cellular machineries for chromosomal DNA repair

2004· review· en· W2162439328 on OpenAlexafffund
Craig L. Peterson, Jacques Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyDNA damageDNA repairDNAChromatinAP siteHistoneGenome instabilityContext (archaeology)Cell biologyMolecular biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each day a cell must face a constant onslaught of DNA lesions. Although we tend to worry most about environmental sources of DNA damage (e.g., chemical agents, UV radiation, ionizing radiation), a human cell must repair over 10,000 DNA lesions per day to counteract endogenous sources of DNA damage (Lindahl 1993). DNA itself has a measurable half-life—spontaneous depurination can generate abasic sites in DNA strands at an estimated rate of 2,000–10,000 lesions per human cell per day (Lindahl 1993). Indeed, it has been proposed that much of the DNA repair machinery has evolved to contend with DNA damage generated by the byproducts of cellular metabolism—reactive oxygen species, endogenous alkylating agents, and DNA singleand doublestrand breaks resulting from collapsed DNA replication forks or from oxidative destruction of deoxyribose residues (Lindahl and Wood 1999; Lindahl 2000). Failure to repair such lesions can lead to a deleterious mutation rate, genomic instability, or cell death. In higher eukaryotes, the damage that occurs in genes responsible for DNA repair and/or cell cycle regulation can lead to threatening diseases such as cancer. The timely and efficient repair of eukaryotic DNA damage is further complicated by the realization that DNA lesions must be detected and repaired in the context of highly condensed, 100–400-nm-thick chromatin fibers (Belmont and Bruce 1994). The nucleosome is the first level of DNA compaction in the nucleus and is formed by the wrapping of 147 bp of DNA around a histone octamer composed of two H2A–H2B dimers and a H3–H4 tetramer. Linear arrays of nucleosomes are then folded into more compact structures, stabilized by linker histones such as histone H1. These compact structures are well known to hinder nuclear processes like transcription, and several in vitro studies have demonstrated that the assembly of DNA lesions into chromatin greatly hinders their detection and subsequent repair (see below). Within cells, of course, the repair machinery has created the means to contend with chromosomal structures, and an enormous number of DNA lesions are faithfully repaired each cell cycle. Here we review recent studies that have begun to elucidate this cellular machinery that facilitates DNA repair within the context of chromatin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations283
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207