MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019787541 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227849

DNA damage induced during mitosis undergoes DNA repair synthesis

2020· article· en· W3019787541 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Veronica Gomez Godinez, Sami Kabbara, Adria J. Sherman, Tao Wu, Shirli Cohen, Xiangduo Kong, José Luis Maravillas‐Montero, Zhixia Shi, Daryl Preece, Kyoko Yokomori, Michael W. Berns

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesYork UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMitosisDNA damageDNA repairInterphaseBiologyCell biologyDNAGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the mitotic DNA damage response (DDR) is critical to our comprehension of cancer, premature aging and developmental disorders which are marked by DNA repair deficiencies. In this study we use a micro-focused laser to induce DNA damage in selected mitotic chromosomes to study the subsequent repair response. Our findings demonstrate that (1) mitotic cells are capable of DNA repair as evidenced by DNA synthesis at damage sites, (2) Repair is attenuated when DNA-PKcs and ATM are simultaneously compromised, (3) Laser damage may permit the observation of previously undetected DDR proteins when damage is elicited by other methods in mitosis, and (4) Twenty five percent of mitotic DNA-damaged cells undergo a subsequent mitosis. Together these findings suggest that mitotic DDR is more complex than previously thought and may involve factors from multiple repair pathways that are better understood in interphase.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207