MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171831910 · doi:10.1093/nar/gku1307

DNA ligase III acts as a DNA strand break sensor in the cellular orchestration of DNA strand break repair

2014· article· en· W2171831910 on OpenAlexafffund
Ismail Abdou, Guy G. Poirier, Michael J. Hendzel, Michael Weinfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesUniversity of SussexAlberta Cancer FoundationPfizer
KeywordsXRCC1BiologyDNA damageDNA repairDNA ligaseCell biologyDNAMolecular biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current model of DNA SSBR, PARP1 is regarded as the sensor of single-strand breaks (SSBs). However, biochemical studies have implicated LIG3 as another possible SSB sensor. Using a laser micro-irradiation protocol that predominantly generates SSBs, we were able to demonstrate that PARP1 is dispensable for the accumulation of different single-strand break repair (SSBR) proteins at sites of DNA damage in live cells. Furthermore, we show in live cells for the first time that LIG3 plays a role in mediating the accumulation of the SSBR proteins XRCC1 and PNKP at sites of DNA damage. Importantly, the accumulation of LIG3 at sites of DNA damage did not require the BRCT domain-mediated interaction with XRCC1. We were able to show that the N-terminal ZnF domain of LIG3 plays a key role in the enzyme's SSB sensing function. Finally, we provide cellular evidence that LIG3 and not PARP1 acts as the sensor for DNA damage caused by the topoisomerase I inhibitor, irinotecan. Our results support the existence of a second damage-sensing mechanism in SSBR involving the detection of nicks in the genome by LIG3.

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 score0.006

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207