MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response of Base Excision Repair Enzymes to Complex DNA Lesions

2001· review· en· W2178225883 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer Foundation
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsAP siteBase excision repairDNA repairDNADNA damageDNA glycosylaseDNA-(apurinic or apyrimidinic site) lyaseBiologyEndonucleaseAP endonucleaseIonizing radiationLesionEnzymeGeneticsBiochemistryMedicinePhysicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is now increasing evidence that ionizing radiation generates complex DNA damage, i.e. two or more lesions--single-strand breaks or modified nucleosides--located within one to two helical turns on the same strand or on opposite strands. Double-strand breaks are the most readily recognizable clustered lesions, but they may constitute a relatively minor fraction of the total. It is anticipated that clustered lesions may play a significant role in cellular response to ionizing radiation since they may present a major challenge to the DNA repair machinery. The degree of lesion complexity increases with increasing LET. This has potential implications for space travel because of exposure to high-LET cosmic radiation. It is therefore critical that we begin to understand the consequences of such damaged sites, including their influence on DNA repair enzymes. This paper presents a short review of our current knowledge of the action of purified DNA repair enzymes belonging to the base excision repair pathway, including DNA glycosylases and apurinic/apyrimidinic endonucleases, on model complex lesions.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.285 · 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