MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799919764 · doi:10.1074/jbc.ra118.002158

Long repeating (TTAGGG) single-stranded DNA self-condenses into compact beaded filaments stabilized by G-quadruplex formation

2018· article· en· W2799919764 on OpenAlexaff
Anirban Kar, Nathan D. Jones, N. Özlem Arat, Richard Fishel, Jack D. Griffith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDNAG-quadruplexBiophysicsMagnetic tweezersChemistryDuplex (building)GuanineDNA origamiNucleotideFluorescenceTelomereBiologyBiochemistryPhysicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, as well as the interrogation of its structure by EM and single-molecule magnetic tweezers (smMT). This repeat is of particular interest because it contains a run of three contiguous guanine residues capable of forming G quartets as ssDNA. Fluorescent-dye exclusion assays confirmed that this G-strand ssDNA forms ubiquitous G-quadruplex folds. EM revealed thick bead-like filaments that condensed the DNA ∼12-fold. The bead-like structures were 5 and 8 nm in diameter and linked by thin filaments. The G-strand ssDNA displayed initial stability to smMT force extension that ultimately released in steps that were multiples ∼28 nm at forces between 6 and 12 pN, well below the >20 pN required to unravel G-quadruplexes. Most smMT steps were consistent with the disruption of the beads seen by EM. Binding by RAD51 distinctively altered the force extension properties of the G-strand ssDNA, suggesting a stochastic G-quadruplex-dependent condensation model that is discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207