Ku Binding on Telomeres Occurs at Sites Distal from the Physical Chromosome Ends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ku complex binds non-specifically to DNA breaks and ensures repair via NHEJ. However, Ku is also known to bind directly to telomeric DNA ends and its presence there is associated with telomere capping, but avoiding NHEJ. How the complex discriminates between a DNA break and a telomeric extremity remains unknown. Our results using a tagged Ku complex, or a chromosome end capturing method, in budding yeast show that yKu association with telomeres can occur at sites distant from the physical end, on sub-telomeric elements, as well as on interstitial telomeric repeats. Consistent with previous studies, our results also show that yKu associates with telomeres in two distinct and independent ways: either via protein-protein interactions between Yku80 and Sir4 or via direct DNA binding. Importantly, yKu associates with the new sites reported here via both modes. Therefore, in sir4Δ cells, telomere bound yKu molecules must have loaded from a DNA-end near the transition of non-telomeric to telomeric repeat sequences. Such ends may have been one sided DNA breaks that occur as a consequence of stalled replication forks on or near telomeric repeat DNA. Altogether, the results predict a new model for yKu function at telomeres that involves yKu binding at one-sided DNA breaks caused by replication stalling. On telomere proximal chromatin, this binding is not followed by initiation of non-homologous end-joining, but rather by break-induced replication or repeat elongation by telomerase. After repair, the yKu-distal portion of telomeres is bound by Rap1, which in turn reduces the potential for yKu to mediate NHEJ. These results thus propose a solution to a long-standing conundrum, namely how to accommodate the apparently conflicting functions of Ku on telomeres.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".