UBR5 interacts with the replication fork and protects DNA replication from DNA polymerase η toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate DNA replication is critical for the maintenance of genome integrity and cellular survival. Cancer-associated alterations often involve key players of DNA replication and of the DNA damage-signalling cascade. Post-translational modifications play a fundamental role in coordinating replication and repair and central among them is ubiquitylation. We show that the E3 ligase UBR5 interacts with components of the replication fork, including the translesion synthesis (TLS) polymerase polη. Depletion of UBR5 leads to replication problems, such as slower S-phase progression, resulting in the accumulation of single stranded DNA. The effect of UBR5 knockdown is related to a mis-regulation in the pathway that controls the ubiquitylation of histone H2A (UbiH2A) and blocking this modification is sufficient to rescue the cells from replication problems. We show that the presence of polη is the main cause of replication defects and cell death when UBR5 is silenced. Finally, we unveil a novel interaction between polη and H2A suggesting that UbiH2A could be involved in polη recruitment to the chromatin and the regulation of TLS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".