MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566531305 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2015-3016

Abstract 3016: APOBEC3 enzymes induce damage to the cellular genome during DNA replication

2015· article· en· W2566531305 on OpenAlexaff
Abby M. Green, Sébastien Landry, James P. Evans, Sophia Z. Shalhout, Ashok S. Bhagwat, Matthew D. Weitzman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiochemical and Molecular Research
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytidine deaminaseBiologyDNA damageGenome instabilityDNADNA repairDNA replicationGeneticsMolecular biologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The APOBEC3/AID family of cytidine deaminase enzymes are powerful DNA editors that convert cytidine to uracil. APOBEC3 (A3) enzymes provide immune defense by mutating and inactivating viral genomes. We have previously shown that A3 enzymes are also capable of causing cellular DNA damage. Recent bioinformatics analyses of breast cancer and other solid tumor genomes identify a mutational pattern consistent with A3 activity. The mutational signature of A3 enzymes includes a predominance of C-to-T transitions, mutated cytidines within a TC context, and clustered hypermutation. We identified the mutational hallmarks of A3 activity in a subset of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) genomes. To understand the circumstances under which A3 enzymes cause damage to cellular DNA, we examined the effect of A3 overexpression using a doxycycline-inducible system in human cancer cell lines. A3 enzymes edit single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), thus we hypothesize that A3 enzymes act on the cellular genome when ssDNA is exposed during DNA replication. APOBEC3A (A3A) is the most potent of the seven A3 enzymes and induces phosphorylation of histone-variant H2AX (γH2AX), indicating double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs). We examined the DNA damage response pathways activated by A3A expression and found that both Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) kinase and ATM-Related (ATR) kinase signaling occurs when A3A is expressed. As expected from these findings, we show that cycling cells induced to express A3A arrest in S phase. ATR signaling is activated in response to DNA damage such as ssDNA breaks, and replication fork stress. To assess whether A3A acts on the cellular genome during DNA replication, we induced replication stress by treating cells with hydroxyurea (HU). We found that A3A expression increases DNA damage signaling in HU-treated cells. Additionally, we examined γH2AX and quantified genomic uracil throughout the cell cycle in cells induced to express A3A. Cells that expressed A3A and were arrested in G1 phase by isoleucine depletion had decreased cellular DNA damage and less genomic uracil as compared to those in S phase. These observations suggest that cells undergoing DNA replication are particularly vulnerable to deamination by A3A. Overall, these data support the hypothesis that A3 enzymes contribute to genomic instability and may contribute to malignant transformation. A3 enzymes may be responsible for the clustered cytidine mutations identified in pediatric leukemia genomes. This research is the first investigation into the association between A3 enzymes and pediatric cancer, and provides insight into the impact of A3A on replicating DNA. Citation Format: Abby M. Green, Sebastien Landry, James P. Evans, Sophia Shalhout, Ashok S. Bhagwat, Matthew D. Weitzman. APOBEC3 enzymes induce damage to the cellular genome during DNA replication. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 3016. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-3016

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)0.001
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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBiochemical and Molecular ResearchFrench-language works237,207