MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590501509 · doi:10.1080/19491034.2017.1292193

Repetitive DNA loci and their modulation by the non-canonical nucleic acid structures R-loops and G-quadruplexes

2017· review· en· W2590501509 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleus · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsTelomereTransposable elementGenomeRetrotransposonDNA replicationDNAComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cells have evolved intricate mechanisms to maintain genome stability despite allowing mutational changes to drive evolutionary adaptation. Repetitive DNA sequences, which represent the bulk of most genomes, are a major threat to genome stability often driving chromosome rearrangements and disease. The major source of repetitive DNA sequences and thus the most vulnerable constituents of the genome are the rDNA (rDNA) repeats, telomeres, and transposable elements. Maintaining the stability of these loci is critical to overall cellular fitness and lifespan. Therefore, cells have evolved mechanisms to regulate rDNA copy number, telomere length and transposon activity, as well as DNA repair at these loci. In addition, non-canonical structure-forming DNA motifs can also modulate the function of these repetitive DNA loci by impacting their transcription, replication, and stability. Here, we discuss key mechanisms that maintain rDNA repeats, telomeres, and transposons in yeast and human before highlighting emerging roles for non-canonical DNA structures at these repetitive loci.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.236 · 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