MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166210927 · doi:10.1073/pnas.032671599

<i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> DNA mismatch repair gene <i>msh-2</i> is required for microsatellite stability and maintenance of genome integrity

2002· article· en· W2166210927 on OpenAlexafffund
Natasha P. Degtyareva, Patricia W. Greenwell, E. Hofmann, Michael O. Hengartner, Lijia Zhang, Joseph G. Culotti, Thomas D. Petes

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCaenorhabditis elegansBiologyGeneticsDNA mismatch repairGenome instabilityGeneDNA repairMSH2MutantMutationTransposable elementGenomeDNA damageDNACell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mismatch repair genes are important in maintaining the fidelity of DNA replication. To determine the function of the Caenorhabditis elegans homologue of the MSH2 mismatch repair gene (msh-2), we isolated a strain of C. elegans with an insertion of the transposable element Tc1 within msh-2. Early-passage msh-2 mutants were similar to wild-type worms with regard to lifespan and meiotic chromosome segregation but had slightly reduced fertility. The mutant worms had reduced DNA damage-induced germ-line apoptosis after genotoxic stress. The msh-2 mutants also had elevated levels of microsatellite instability and increased rates of reversion of the dominant unc-58(e665) mutation. In addition, serially passaged cultures of msh-2 worms died out much more quickly than those of wild-type worms. These results demonstrate that msh-2 function in C. elegans is important in regulating both short- and long-term genomic stability.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207