MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rad5 Prevents the Accumulation of ssDNA Gaps at Stressed DNA Replication Forks

2018· article· en· W3100231334 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Grant W. Brown, David Gallo, Simon Kim, Zhaolei Zhang, Dana Branzei

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Cancer Society Research Institute
KeywordsChromatinProliferating cell nuclear antigenDNA damageBiologyDNA replicationHelicaseCell biologyEukaryotic DNA replicationControl of chromosome duplicationMolecular biologyDNADNA repairCell cycleGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In S. cerevisiae Rad5 is a component of the post‐replication repair pathway (PRR) and possesses both E3‐ubiquitin ligase and DNA helicase activity. We recently found that Rad5 forms sub‐nuclear foci after treatment with hydroxyurea (HU). Previous studies indicate that Rad5‐dependent poly‐ubiquitination of PCNA is required for error‐free bypass of MMS‐ or UV‐induced DNA lesions but there is little insight into the role of Rad5 in response to HU‐induced replication stress, where base lesions are likely absent. Here we define the function of Rad5 during HU‐induced replication stress. Rad5 foci form predominantly during S phase of the cell cycle and are induced by both chemical and genetic replication stress, suggesting that Rad5 foci correspond to Rad5 action at stressed DNA replication forks. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by deep sequencing (ChIP‐seq) we show that Rad5 is recruited and retained at HU‐stressed forks, and that recruitment depends on mono‐ubiquitination of PCNA. To reveal the function of Rad5 at stressed‐forks we monitored cell cycle progression of WT and rad5 null cells recovering from HU‐induced replication stress. In this scenario rad5 null cells delay in G2/M with an activated DNA damage checkpoint, chromatin bridges, and increased RPA foci, indicating the presence of ssDNA. The ssDNA that accumulates in rad5 Δ is not a product of incomplete replication at specific loci, and is not the result of abnormal recombination. In fact, deletion of the anti‐recombinase gene SRS2 rescues the accumulation of chromatin bridges in rad5 Δ, suggesting that activating homologous recombination during S phase can compensate for rad5 deficiency during replication stress. We use a modified version of DNA combing to show the presence of ssDNA gaps directly, and to show that these accumulate in rad5 Δ. Taken together, our results indicate that Rad5 prevents accumulation of ssDNA and allows for non‐recombinogenic recovery from replication stress. Support or Funding Information Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→