Destabilization of the MiniChromosome Maintenance (MCM) complex modulates the cellular response to DNA double strand breaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA replication during S phase involves thousands of replication forks that must be coordinated to ensure that every DNA section is replicated only once. The minichromosome maintenance proteins, MCM2 to MCM7, form a heteromeric DNA helicase required for both the initiation and elongation of DNA replication. Although only two DNA helicase activities are necessary to establish a bidirectional replication fork from each replication origin, a large excess of MCM complexes is amassed and distributed along the chromatin. The function of the additional MCM complexes is not well understood, as most are displaced from the DNA during the S-phase, apparently without playing an active role in DNA replication. DNA damage response (DDR) kinases activated by stalled forks prevent the replication machinery from being activated, indicating a tight relationship between DDR and DNA replication. To investigate the role of MCM proteins in the cellular response to DNA damage, we used shRNA targeting MCM2 or MCM3 to determine the impact of a reduction in MCM complex. The alteration of MCM proteins induced a change in the activation of key factors of the DDR in response to Etoposide treatment. Etoposide-induced DNA damage affected the phosphorylation of γ-H2AX, CHK1 and CHK2 without affecting cell viability. Using assays measuring homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ), we identified a decrease in both HR and NHEJ associated with a decrease in MCM complex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".