MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221325499 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m115.705061

Molecular Basis for Phosphorylation-dependent SUMO Recognition by the DNA Repair Protein RAP80

2015· article· en· W2221325499 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Anamika, Leo Spyracopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA repairBiologyUbiquitinDNADNA damageSUMO proteinCell biologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognition and repair of double-stranded DNA breaks (DSB) involves the targeted recruitment of BRCA tumor suppressors to damage foci through binding of both ubiquitin (Ub) and the Ub-like modifier SUMO. RAP80 is a component of the BRCA1 A complex, and plays a key role in the recruitment process through the binding of Lys(63)-linked poly-Ub chains by tandem Ub interacting motifs (UIM). RAP80 also contains a SUMO interacting motif (SIM) just upstream of the tandem UIMs that has been shown to specifically bind the SUMO-2 isoform. The RAP80 tandem UIMs and SIM function collectively for optimal recruitment of BRCA1 to DSBs, although the molecular basis of this process is not well understood. Using NMR spectroscopy, we demonstrate that the RAP80 SIM binds SUMO-2, and that both specificity and affinity are enhanced through phosphorylation of the canonical CK2 site within the SIM. The affinity increase results from an enhancement of electrostatic interactions between the phosphoserines of RAP80 and the SIM recognition module within SUMO-2. The NMR structure of the SUMO-2·phospho-RAP80 complex reveals that the molecular basis for SUMO-2 specificity is due to isoform-specific sequence differences in electrostatic SIM recognition modules.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207