MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pch2 is a meiotic hexameric ATPase that binds to and alters Hop1 functions

2013· article· en· W3169032725 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cheng Chen, Ahmad Jomaa, Joaquín Ortega, Eric Alani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHomologous chromosomeSynaptonemal complexHomologous recombinationMeiosisBiologyGeneticsATP hydrolysisRandom hexamerChromosomeCell biologyGenetic recombinationChromosome segregationDNAATPaseRecombinationMolecular biologyBiochemistryGeneEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most organisms, the segregation of chromosomes during the first meiotic division requires at least one crossover between pairs of homologous chromosomes. Crossovers come from programmed double‐strand breaks (DSBs) that are preferentially repaired using the homologous chromosome as a template (this preference is called interhomolog bias). In budding yeast, PCH2 is required to establish proper meiotic chromosome structure, regulate timing of recombination progression and promote interhomolog bias. How Pch2 functions at the molecular level is unknown despite its wide conservation. PCH2 open reading frame contains regions homologous to AAA ATPase proteins, and here we show that: 1. Pch2 is an ATPase that forms a hexamer in the presence of nucleotides. 2. Both ATP binding and hydrolysis by Pch2 are critical for its in vivo functions. 3. Pch2 binds to Hop1, an axial component of the synaptonemal complex, and alters its DNA binding activity. Based on these and previous cell biological observations, we propose that Pch2 acts as a stringency factor in meiosis to facilitate Hop1 binding to specific chromosomal regions, thus licensing steps that monitor recombination progression and lead to interhomolog bias. C.C. and E.A. are supported by NIH GM53085. J.O. is supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP‐82930). A.J. is supported by a CIHR Doctoral Research Award.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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