MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080840221 · doi:10.1101/2020.08.24.263459

Genome-Wide Mapping of Human DNA Replication by Optical Replication Mapping Supports a Stochastic Model of Eukaryotic Replication

2020· preprint· en· W3080840221 on OpenAlexaff
Weitao Wang, Kyle N. Klein, Karel Proesmans, Hongbo Yang, Claire Marchal, Xiaopeng Zhu, Tyler Borrman, Alex Hastie, Zhiping Weng, John Bechhoefer, Chun-Long Chen, David M. Gilbert, Nick Rhind

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersInstitut National Du CancerCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleNational Institutes of HealthAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsReplication timingOrigin recognition complexPre-replication complexDNA replicationReplication (statistics)Licensing factorBiologyOrigin of replicationHuman genomeComputational biologyGenomeGeneticsEukaryotic DNA replicationComputer scienceDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract DNA replication is regulated by the location and timing of replication initiation. Therefore, much effort has been invested in identifying and analyzing the sites of human replication initiation. However, the heterogeneous nature of eukaryotic replication kinetics and the low efficiency of individual initiation site utilization in metazoans has made mapping the location and timing of replication initiation in human cells difficult. A potential solution to the problem of human replication mapping is single-molecule analysis. However, current approaches do not provide the throughput required for genome-wide experiments. To address this challenge, we have developed Optical Replication Mapping (ORM), a high-throughput single-molecule approach to map newly replicated DNA, and used it to map early initiation events in human cells. The single-molecule nature of our data, and a total of more than 2000-fold coverage of the human genome on 27 million fibers averaging ~300 kb in length, allow us to identify initiation sites and their firing probability with high confidence. In particular, for the first time, we are able to measure genome-wide the absolute efficiency of human replication initiation. We find that the distribution of human replication initiation is consistent with inefficient, stochastic initiation of heterogeneously distributed potential initiation complexes enriched in accessible chromatin. In particular, we find sites of human replication initiation are not confined to well-defined replication origins but are instead distributed across broad initiation zones consisting of many initiation sites. Furthermore, we find no correlation of initiation events between neighboring initiation zones. Although most early initiation events occur in early-replicating regions of the genome, a significant number occur in late-replicating regions. The fact that initiation sites in typically late-replicating regions have some probability of firing in early S phase suggests that the major difference between initiation events in early and late replicating regions is their intrinsic probability of firing, as opposed to a qualitative difference in their firing-time distributions. Moreover, modeling of replication kinetics demonstrates that measuring the efficiency of initiation-zone firing in early S phase suffices to predict the average firing time of such initiation zones throughout S phase, further suggesting that the differences between the firing times of early and late initiation zones are quantitative, rather than qualitative. These observations are consistent with stochastic models of initiation-timing regulation and suggest that stochastic regulation of replication kinetics is a fundamental feature of eukaryotic replication, conserved from yeast to humans.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207