MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415347727 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-182-5:163

Extracting DNA Demethylase Activity from Mammalian Cells

2003· article· en· W2415347727 on OpenAlexafffund
Moshe Szyf, Sanjoy K. Bhattacharya

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsDemethylationDNA demethylationCytosineDNAChemistryDemethylaseDNA glycosylaseBase excision repairNucleotideCleavage (geology)CpG siteUracilDNA methylationBiochemistryStereochemistryDNA repairBiologyGeneGene expressionHistone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purification of an enzymatic activity requires a simple and relatively expeditious assay of its activity. However, the nature of the demethylase reaction has been elusive for decades. Although a large body of evidence supported the hypothesis that active demethylation takes place during development and differentiation (), the nature of the reaction was unknown. The main problem with understanding demethylaion of DNA is that true demethylation of DNA would involve cleavage of a stable carbon-carbon bond, which had been considered highly unlikely. Different laboratories have suggested that demethylation of DNA is accomplished by different repair mechanisms. These alternative routes involve either a cleavage of the bond between the methylated cytosine base and the deoxyribose () or nucleotide excision () (Fig. 1). We have recently shown that mamMalian cancer-cell lines bear a bona fide demethylase activity and we defined the reactants and products of the demethylation reaction. The demethylation reaction involves the hydrolytic cleavage of the bond between the methyl-carbon and the carbon at the 5 position of the cytosine ring (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) producing unmethylated cytosine while the methyl group is released as methanol (). Open image in new window Fig. 1. Possible demethylation mechanisms. The figures shows a methylated CpG dinucleotide. DNA could be demethylated either directly or indirectly. Indirect demethylation might involve either removing the methyl-C base by a glycosylase or removing the methyl-CpG dinucleotide by a nucleotide excision mechanism. The possible cleavage points are indicated. The damaged DNA is repaired by the repair machinery, introducing unmethylated cytosines into the damaged region. Alternatively, the methyl group per se could be removed by cleavage of the carbon-carbon bond between the carbon at the 5′ position of cytosine and the methyl group. The methyl group leaves as a volatile residue. Open image in new window Fig. 2. The direct demethylation reaction. As shown in ref. the methyl residue in methylated cytosine can react with water in a reaction catalyzed by the demethylase enzyme to form methanol and nonmethylated cytosines.

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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207