MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769027349 · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02114-x

ATM and CDK2 control chromatin remodeler CSB to inhibit RIF1 in DSB repair pathway choice

2017· article· en· W2769027349 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole L. Batenburg, John R. Walker, Sylvie M. Noordermeer, Nathalie Moatti, Daniel Durocher, Xu‐Dong Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChromatinCell biologyEffectorHistoneChromatin remodelingDNA repairBiologyChemistryDNAGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CSB, a member of the SWI2/SNF2 superfamily, is implicated in DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair. However, how it regulates this repair process is poorly understood. Here we uncover that CSB interacts via its newly identified winged helix domain with RIF1, an effector of 53BP1, and that this interaction mediates CSB recruitment to DSBs in S phase. At DSBs, CSB remodels chromatin by evicting histones, which limits RIF1 and its effector MAD2L2 but promotes BRCA1 accumulation. The chromatin remodeling activity of CSB requires not only damage-induced phosphorylation on S10 by ATM but also cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation on S158 by cyclin A-CDK2. Both modifications modulate the interaction of the CSB N-terminal region with its ATPase domain, the activity of which has been previously reported to be autorepressed by the N-terminal region. These results suggest that ATM and CDK2 control the chromatin remodeling activity of CSB in the regulation of DSB repair pathway choice.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations74
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207