MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2973075108 · doi:10.1101/766147

SET8 localization to chromatin flanking DNA damage is dependent on RNF168 ubiquitin ligase

2019· preprint· en· W2973075108 on OpenAlexaff
Stanimir Dulev, Sichun Lin, Qingquan Liu, Vildan Bozok Çetintaş, Nizar N. Batada

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatinUbiquitin ligaseUbiquitinDNA damageDNA repairCell biologyBiologyDNADNA ligaseGeneticsMolecular biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The DNA damage response (DDR) associated post-translational modifications recruit chromatin remodelers, signaling proteins such as 53BP1 and repair factors to chromatin flanking DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) to promote its repair. Although localization of both RNF168 ubiquitin ligase and SET8 methyltransferase at DSBs is essential for 53BP1’s recruitment to DSBs, it is unclear if they do so via the same pathways. Here we report that RNF168 mediates SET8’s recruitment to DSBs. Depletion of cellular pool of ubiquitin through proteasome inhibition abolished RNF168 and SET8’s localization to DNA damage. Knockdown of RNF8 or RNF168 abolished SET8’s recruitment to DNA damage. Moreover, RNF168 and SET8 form stable complexes in vivo . Based on these results we propose a model in which SET8, which despite being a pan-chromatin binding protein, can accumulate several folds at chromatin flanking DSBs through tethering to other proteins that specifically localize to chromatin regions with specific modifications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→