MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593966541 · doi:10.7554/elife.20922

A PALB2-interacting domain in RNF168 couples homologous recombination to DNA break-induced chromatin ubiquitylation

2017· article· en· W2593966541 on OpenAlexafffund
Martijn S. Luijsterburg, Dimitris Typas, Marie‐Christine Caron, Wouter W. Wiegant, Diana van den Heuvel, Rick A.C.M. Boonen, Anthony M. Couturier, Leon H.F. Mullenders, Jean‐Yves Masson, Haico van Attikum

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumKWF KankerbestrijdingEuropean Research CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsUbiquitinPALB2Homologous recombinationDNA repairHistoneDNA damageRAD51Ubiquitin ligaseChromatinCell biologyDNAGeneticsBiologyMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) elicit a ubiquitylation cascade that controls DNA repair pathway choice. This cascade involves the ubiquitylation of histone H2A by the RNF168 ligase and the subsequent recruitment of RIF1, which suppresses homologous recombination (HR) in G1 cells. The RIF1-dependent suppression is relieved in S/G2 cells, allowing PALB2-driven HR to occur. With the inhibitory impact of RIF1 relieved, it remains unclear how RNF168-induced ubiquitylation influences HR. Here, we uncover that RNF168 links the HR machinery to H2A ubiquitylation in S/G2 cells. We show that PALB2 indirectly recognizes histone ubiquitylation by physically associating with ubiquitin-bound RNF168. This direct interaction is mediated by the newly identified PALB2-interacting domain (PID) in RNF168 and the WD40 domain in PALB2, and drives DNA repair by facilitating the assembly of PALB2-containing HR complexes at DSBs. Our findings demonstrate that RNF168 couples PALB2-dependent HR to H2A ubiquitylation to promote DNA repair and preserve genome integrity.

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)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations88
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207