MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914817035 · doi:10.1107/s0108767318097209

DNA damage repair – investigating the conformations of DNA ligase and PCNA

2018· article· en· W2914817035 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations and Advances · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA ligaseProliferating cell nuclear antigenDNADNA repairDNA damageDNA LigasesChemistryMolecular biologyComputational biologyGeneticsBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA damage repair is a central pillar of genomic integrity and all DNA repair pathways include DNA Ligase carrying out a 3-step reaction. Damaged DNA is not only produced from exogenous sources but also arises from normal cellular activities like genome replication. During replication, the lagging strand is synthesized as Okazaki fragments that require DNA Ligase to function efficiently. The trimeric proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) orchestrates DNA Ligase with nucleases and polymerases through their PCNA interacting peptide (PIP) motif. The PIP motif of DNA Ligase I is found in its unstructured N-terminus. An N-terminal truncation led to the crystal structure of DNA Ligase I in complex with nicked DNA. However, questions remain on Ligase domain rearrangements throughout the three steps of ligation and on its interactions with PCNA.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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