MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981556824 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2019.01117

Yeast Lacking the PP2A Phosphatase Regulatory Subunit Rts1 Sensitizes rad51 Mutants to Specific DNA Damaging Agents

2019· article· en· W2981556824 on OpenAlexaff
Mustapha Aouida, Abdelmoez Eshrif, Dindial Ramotar

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRAD51DNA damageDNA repairDNABiologyBleomycinMutantProtein subunitGeneticsGeneMolecular biologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rts1 is a regulatory subunit of the trimeric PP2A phosphatase and it participates in many biological processes by modulating the phosphorylation status of proteins. Consistent with its role, mutants lacking Rts1 display multiple phenotypes. We have previously performed a high throughput screen to search for yeast haploid mutants with altered sensitivity to the anticancer drug bleomycin, which acts by damaging the DNA to produce single and double strand breaks. RTS1 was amongst the genes that when singly deleted cause sensitivity to bleomycin. We investigate whether Rts1 plays a role in the repair of bleomycin-induced DNA lesions. We show that deletion of the RTS1 gene in the rad51 null background, lacking Rad51 known to be involved in the repair of bleomycin-induced DNA lesions, resulted in double mutants that were sensitized to bleomycin and not to other DNA damaging agents that creates DNA adducts. We further show that Rts1 has the ability to bind to DNA and in its absence cells displayed an increase in the frequency of both spontaneous and bleomycin-induced mutations compared to the parent. This is the first report implicating Rts1 with a role in DNA damage and repair, perhaps regulating the phosphorylation status of one or more proteins involved in the repair of DNA strand breaks.

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207