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 OpenAlexaff
Amanda C. Hall, Lauren Ostrowski, Violena Pietrobon, Karim Mekhail

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleusSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207