Influence of bcr/abl fusion protein on cell repair function after DNA damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM:To establish the DNA damage model for the transformed mouse BaF3-P210 cell line stably expressing bcr/abl and to investigate the influence of bcr/abl fusion protein on the cell repair function after DNA damage.METHODS:The comet assay was employed to detect the DNA damage in BaF3-P210 cells induced by hydrogen peroxide at various concentrations to construct the DNA damage model.The BaF3-MIGR1 cell line transfected by the empty vector MIGR1 without the bcr/abl fusion gene was used as a control.A dynamic observation on the DNA repair after cell DNA damage was performed by the comet assay.RESULTS:The cell DNA damage models for both BaF3-P210 and BaF3-MIGR1 cells were established with hydrogen peroxide treatment at a final concentration of 50 μmol/L for 10 min at 4℃ as confirmed by the comet assay results.When compared with the control BaF3-MIGR1 cell group,the time duration required for the DNA repair of the BaF3-P210 cell group was significantly decreased,with 60 mins for BaF3-P210 cells and 120 min for BaF3-MIGR1 cells(P0.05).CONCLUSION:The cell DNA damage model for the transformed mouse BaF3-P210 cell line stably expressing bcr/abl is successfully established and bcr/abl fusion protein strengthens the DNA repair capacity of the BaF3-P210 cell line after 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".