MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Functional Characterization Of Dbf4 Interactions With DNA Replication And Checkpoint Factors

2013· article· en· W3170982363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darryl R. Jones, Lindsay A. Matthews, Brendan J. McConkey, Alba Guarné, Bernard P. Duncker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyG2-M DNA damage checkpointDNA replicationGeneticsMinichromosome maintenanceOrigin recognition complexCell cycle checkpointHelicaseControl of chromosome duplicationComputational biologyCell biologyEukaryotic DNA replicationDNACell cycleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dbf4/Cdc7 kinase complex (DDK) is essential for the initiation of DNA replication, acting upon the MCM helicase complex to trigger the initiation of replication. DDK is also a target of the intra‐S phase checkpoint, important in preserving genomic stability. Dbf4, the regulatory subunit of this kinase complex, contains three regions that are highly conserved across eukaryotic species. Of these regions the amino terminal N motif adopts a modified BRCT fold that is crucial to maintain the interaction with the checkpoint kinase Rad53, while the M and C motifs are both involved with the interaction with Cdc7 and the Mcm2 component of the MCM helicase. Mutations to critical amino acids within either of the N or C motifs result in sensitivity to a variety of DNA damaging agents. Employing both bioinformatics and structural NMR based approaches we have identified a novel surface of the forkhead‐associated (FHA1) domain of Rad53 that mediates its interaction with Dbf4. Additionally, we have generated strains that combine Dbf4 motif C mutation with mutations in previously characterized checkpoint proteins in order to better define the checkpoint role of Dbf4. Together, these findings shed light on the mechanism by which Dbf4 aids in maintaining genome stability. This research was supported through grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

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 score0.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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