MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335499581 · doi:10.1534/genetics.115.185454

<i>MTE1</i> Functions with <i>MPH1</i> in Double-Strand Break Repair

2016· article· en· W2335499581 on OpenAlexaff
Askar Yimit, Tae‐Hyung Kim, R. Anand, Sarah E. Meister, Jiongwen Ou, James E. Haber, Zhaolei Zhang, Grant W. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBiologyDNA repairRAD52Homologous recombinationHomology directed repairReplication protein ADNA repair protein XRCC4Postreplication repairGenome instabilityDNA mismatch repairGeneticsDNA damageDNA replicationHelicaseDNACell biologyMolecular biologyGeneRAD51DNA-binding proteinRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Double-strand DNA breaks occur upon exposure of cells to ionizing radiation and certain chemical agents or indirectly through replication fork collapse at DNA damage sites. If left unrepaired, double-strand breaks can cause genome instability and cell death, and their repair can result in loss of heterozygosity. In response to DNA damage, proteins involved in double-strand break repair by homologous recombination relocalize into discrete nuclear foci. We identified 29 proteins that colocalize with recombination repair protein Rad52 in response to DNA damage. Of particular interest, Ygr042w/Mte1, a protein of unknown function, showed robust colocalization with Rad52. Mte1 foci fail to form when the DNA helicase gene MPH1 is absent. Mte1 and Mph1 form a complex and are recruited to double-strand breaks in vivo in a mutually dependent manner. MTE1 is important for resolution of Rad52 foci during double-strand break repair and for suppressing break-induced replication. Together our data indicate that Mte1 functions with Mph1 in double-strand break 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 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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207