MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013032551 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.003

Structural Basis for EPC1-Mediated Recruitment of MBTD1 into the NuA4/TIP60 Acetyltransferase Complex

2020· article· en· W3013032551 on OpenAlexafffund
Heng Zhang, Maëva Devoucoux, Xiaosheng Song, Li Li, Gamze Ayaz, Harry Cheng, W. Tempel, Dong Cheng, P. Loppnau, Jacques Côté, Jinrong Min

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsChromatinBiologyDNA repairAcetyltransferaseCell biologyHistone acetyltransferaseAcetylationDNATranscription factorProtein subunitTranscription (linguistics)GeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MBTD1, a H4K20me reader, has recently been identified as a component of the NuA4/TIP60 acetyltransferase complex, regulating gene expression and DNA repair. NuA4/TIP60 inhibits 53BP1 binding to chromatin through recognition of the H4K20me mark by MBTD1 and acetylation of H2AK15, blocking the ubiquitination mark required for 53BP1 localization at DNA breaks. The NuA4/TIP60 non-catalytic subunit EPC1 enlists MBTD1 into the complex, but the detailed molecular mechanism remains incompletely explored. Here, we present the crystal structure of the MBTD1-EPC1 complex, revealing a hydrophobic C-terminal fragment of EPC1 engaging the MBT repeats of MBTD1 in a site distinct from the H4K20me binding site. Different cellular assays validate the physiological significance of the key residues involved in the MBTD1-EPC1 interaction. Our study provides a structural framework for understanding the mechanism by which MBTD1 recruits the NuA4/TIP60 acetyltransferase complex to influence transcription and DNA repair pathway choice.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207