MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202899490 · doi:10.1038/nature16142

RETRACTED ARTICLE: A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells

2015· article· en· W2202899490 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Orthwein, Sylvie M. Noordermeer, Marcus D. Wilson, Sébastien Landry, Radoslav I. Enchev, Alana Sherker, Meagan Munro, Jordan Pinder, Jayme Salsman, Graham Dellaire, Bing Xia, Matthias Peter, Daniel Durocher

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Data;Concerns/Issues about Image;Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s);
Date1/27/2025 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsHomologous recombinationRAD51Non-homologous end joiningDNA repairHomology directed repairCell biologyBiologyHomologous chromosomeGeneticsPALB2DNAMolecular biologyChemistryGeneMutationDNA mismatch repairGermline mutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mechanism for the repression of homologous recombination in G1, the stage of the cell cycle preceding replication, is determined; the critical aspects are the interaction between BRCA1 and PALB2–BRCA2, and suppression of DNA-end resection. Homologous recombination occurs primarily between sister chromatids, and therefore in the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, after DNA has been replicated. Daniel Durocher and colleagues have determined how homologous recombination is repressed in G1, the stage of the cell cycle preceding replication. They find that the critical aspects are the interaction between BRCA1 and PALB2–BRCA2, and suppression of DNA-end resection. By restoring these activities, they demonstrate that homologous recombination can occur in G1, which could be useful as an approach for gene targeting in non-dividing cells. DNA repair by homologous recombination1 is highly suppressed in G1 cells2,3 to ensure that mitotic recombination occurs solely between sister chromatids4. Although many homologous recombination factors are cell-cycle regulated, the identity of the events that are both necessary and sufficient to suppress recombination in G1 cells is unknown. Here we report that the cell cycle controls the interaction of BRCA1 with PALB2–BRCA2 to constrain BRCA2 function to the S/G2 phases in human cells. We found that the BRCA1-interaction site on PALB2 is targeted by an E3 ubiquitin ligase composed of KEAP1, a PALB2-interacting protein5, in complex with cullin-3 (CUL3)–RBX1 (ref. 6). PALB2 ubiquitylation suppresses its interaction with BRCA1 and is counteracted by the deubiquitylase USP11, which is itself under cell cycle control. Restoration of the BRCA1–PALB2 interaction combined with the activation of DNA-end resection is sufficient to induce homologous recombination in G1, as measured by RAD51 recruitment, unscheduled DNA synthesis and a CRISPR–Cas9-based gene-targeting assay. We conclude that the mechanism prohibiting homologous recombination in G1 minimally consists of the suppression of DNA-end resection coupled with a multi-step block of the recruitment of BRCA2 to DNA damage sites that involves the inhibition of BRCA1–PALB2–BRCA2 complex assembly. We speculate that the ability to induce homologous recombination in G1 cells with defined factors could spur the development of gene-targeting applications in non-dividing cells.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.011

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations476
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207