Defects in the GINS complex increase the instability of repetitive sequences via a recombination-dependent mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faithful replication and repair of DNA lesions ensure genome maintenance. During replication in eukaryotic cells, DNA is unwound by the CMG helicase complex, which is composed of three major components: the Cdc45 protein, Mcm2-7, and the GINS complex. The CMG in complex with DNA polymerase epsilon (CMG-E) participates in the establishment and progression of the replisome. Impaired functioning of the CMG-E was shown to induce genomic instability and promote the development of various diseases. Therefore, CMG-E components play important roles as caretakers of the genome. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the GINS complex is composed of the Psf1, Psf2, Psf3, and Sld5 essential subunits. The Psf1-1 mutant form fails to interact with Psf3, resulting in impaired replisome assembly and chromosome replication. Here, we show increased instability of repeat tracts (mononucleotide, dinucleotide, trinucleotide and longer) in yeast psf1-1 mutants. To identify the mechanisms underlying this effect, we analyzed repeated sequence instability using derivatives of psf1-1 strains lacking genes involved in translesion synthesis, recombination, or mismatch repair. Among these derivatives, deletion of RAD52, RAD51, MMS2, POL32, or PIF1 significantly decreased DNA repeat instability. These results, together with the observed increased amounts of single-stranded DNA regions and Rfa1 foci suggest that recombinational mechanisms make important contributions to repeat tract instability in psf1-1 cells. We propose that defective functioning of the CMG-E complex in psf1-1 cells impairs the progression of DNA replication what increases the contribution of repair mechanisms such as template switch and break-induced replication. These processes require sequence homology search which in case of a repeated DNA tract may result in misalignment leading to its expansion or contraction.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".