MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944728517 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2019.07.018

Nej1 Interacts with Mre11 to Regulate Tethering and Dna2 Binding at DNA Double-Strand Breaks

2019· article· en· W2944728517 on OpenAlexafffund
Aditya Mojumdar, Kyle Sorenson, Marcel Hohl, Mathias Toulouze, Susan P. Lees‐Miller, Karine Dubrana, John H.J. Petrini, Jennifer A. Cobb

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Council for Eurasian and East European ResearchMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
KeywordsTetheringRad50Homologous recombinationNon-homologous end joiningDNA repairDNACell biologyBiologyDNA-binding proteinGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR) are the two major pathways of DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair and both are highly conserved from yeast to mammals. Nej1 has a role in DNA end-tethering at a DSB, and the Mre11/Rad50/Xrs2 (MRX) complex is important for its recruitment to the break. Nej1 and Dna2-Sgs1 interact with the C-terminal end of Mre11, which also includes the region where Rad50 binds. By characterizing the functionality of Nej1 in two rad50 mutants, which alter the structural features of MRX, we demonstrate that Nej1 inhibits the binding of Dna2 to Mre11 and Sgs1. Nej1 interactions with Mre11 promote tethering and inhibit hyper-resection, and when these events are compromised, large deletions develop at a DSB. The work indicates that Nej1 provides a layer of regulation to repair pathway choice and is consistent with its role in NHEJ.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207