MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163807909 · doi:10.1667/rr3153

Hypertonic Saline Enhances Expression of Phosphorylated Histone H2AX after Irradiation

2004· article· en· W2163807909 on OpenAlexaff
Tarren Reitsema, Judit P. Banáth, Susan H. MacPhail, Peggy L. Olive

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatinHistoneDNA damageBiologyMolecular biologyDNADNA repairFlow cytometryComet assayCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phosphorylation of histone H2AX at serine 139 occurs at sites surrounding DNA double-strand breaks, producing discrete spots called "foci" that are visible with a microscope after antibody staining. This modification is believed to create changes in chromatin structure and assemble various repair proteins at sites of DNA damage. To examine the role of chromatin structure, human SiHa cells were exposed to hypertonic salt solutions that are known to condense chromatin and sensitize cells to chromosome damage and killing by ionizing radiation. Postirradiation incubation in 0.5 M Na(+) increased gammaH2AX expression about fourfold as measured by flow cytometry and immunoblotting, and loss of gammaH2AX was inhibited in the presence of high salt. Focus size rather than the number of radiation-induced gammaH2AX foci was also increased about fourfold. When high-salt treatment was delayed for 1 h after irradiation, effects on focus size and retention were reduced. The increase in focus size was associated with a decrease in the rate of rejoining of double-strand breaks as measured using the neutral comet assay. We conclude that gammaH2AX expression after irradiation is sensitive to salt-induced changes in chromatin structure during focus formation, and that a large focus size may be an indication of a reduced ability to repair DNA damage.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207