MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266051216 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.01.014

Centrosome-Dependent Bypass of the DNA Damage Checkpoint by the Polo Kinase Cdc5

2016· article· en· W2266051216 on OpenAlexafffund
Hery Ratsima, Diego Serrano, Mirela Pascariu, Damien D’Amours

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research SocietyCancer Research Institute
KeywordsCentrosomeCell biologyG2-M DNA damage checkpointBiologyCell cycle checkpointPolo-like kinaseDNA damageCHEK1EffectorCell cycleGeneticsDNACell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell-cycle checkpoints are essential feedback mechanisms that promote genome integrity. However, in the face of unrepairable DNA lesions, bypass mechanisms can suppress checkpoint activity and allow cells to resume proliferation. The molecular mechanisms underlying this biological response are currently not understood. Taking advantage of unique separation-of-function mutants, we show that the Polo-like kinase (PLK) Cdc5 uses a phosphopriming-based interaction mechanism to suppress G2/M checkpoint arrest by targeting Polo kinase activity to centrosomes. We also show that key subunits of the evolutionarily conserved RSC complex are critical downstream effectors of Cdc5 activity in checkpoint suppression. Importantly, the lethality and checkpoint defects associated with loss of Cdc5 Polo box activity can be fully rescued by artificially anchoring Cdc5 kinase domain to yeast centrosomes. Collectively, our results highlight a previously unappreciated role for centrosomes as key signaling centers for the suppression of cell-cycle arrest induced by persistent or unrepairable DNA damage.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207