MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170020025 · doi:10.1093/genetics/163.4.1439

Strand Invasion and DNA Synthesis From the Two 3′ Ends of a Double-Strand Break in Mammalian Cells

2003· article· en· W2170020025 on OpenAlexaff
Richard McCulloch, Leah R. Read, Mark D. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHomologous recombinationGeneticsDNAMolecular biologyRecombinant DNAGene conversionIn vitro recombinationGeneRecombinationPeptide sequenceMolecular cloning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of the crossover products recovered following transformation of mammalian cells with a sequence insertion ("ends-in") gene-targeting vector revealed a novel class of recombinant. In this class of recombinants, a single vector copy has integrated into an ectopic genomic position, leaving the structure of the cognate chromosomal locus unaltered. Thus, in this respect, the recombinants resemble simple cases of random vector integration. However, the important difference is that the two paired 3' vector ends have acquired endogenous, chromosomal sequences flanking both sides of the vector-borne double-strand break (DSB). In some cases, copying was extensive, extending >16 kb into nonhomologous flanking DNA. The results suggest that mammalian homologous recombination events can involve strand invasion and DNA synthesis by both 3' ends of the DSB. These DNA interactions are a central, predicted feature of the DSBR model of recombination.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207