<i>RAD51</i> Is Required for the Repair of Plasmid Double-Stranded DNA Gaps from Either Plasmid or Chromosomal Templates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA double-strand breaks may be induced by endonucleases, ionizing radiation, chemical agents, and mechanical forces or by replication of single-stranded nicked chromosomes. Repair of double-strand breaks can occur by homologous recombination or by nonhomologous end joining. A system was developed to measure the efficiency of plasmid gap repair by homologous recombination using either chromosomal or plasmid templates. Gap repair was biased toward gene conversion events unassociated with crossing over using either donor sequence. The dependence of recombinational gap repair on genes belonging to the RAD52 epistasis group was tested in this system. RAD51, RAD52, RAD57, and RAD59 were required for efficient gap repair using either chromosomal or plasmid donors. No homologous recombination products were recovered from rad52 mutants, whereas a low level of repair occurred in the absence of RAD51, RAD57, or RAD59. These results suggest a minor pathway of strand invasion that is dependent on RAD52 but not on RAD51. The residual repair events in rad51 mutants were more frequently associated with crossing over than was observed in the wild-type strain, suggesting that the mechanisms for RAD51-dependent and RAD51-independent events are different. Plasmid gap repair was reduced synergistically in rad51 rad59 double mutants, indicating an important role for RAD59 in RAD51-independent repair.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".