MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Regulatory ubiquitylation during the response to DNA double‐strand breaks

2013· article· en· W3172758179 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Durocher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA damageUbiquitinChromatinDNA repairCell biologyBiologyDNAAtaxia-telangiectasiaGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chromatin‐based response to DNA double‐strand breaks (DSBs) is characterized by the accumulation of DNA repair factors and DNA damage signaling molecules within a large domain that surrounds the lesion. This response is largely dependent on ATM‐dependent phosphorylation but also on chromatin ubiquitylation. Indeed, the RNF8 and RNF168 E3 ubiquitin ligases are necessary for the accumulation of proteins such as 53BP1, BRCA1 and RAD18 at sites of DNA damage. The critical importance of this pathway is manifested by the observation that biallelic mutations in the RNF168 gene results in an ataxia‐telangiectasia‐like syndrome referred to as RIDDLE. We are interested in understanding how this pathway is regulated and how ubiquitin‐dependent protein interactions orchestrate the hierarchy of protein recruitment at sites of DNA lesions. I will present our current understanding on the regulation and organization of this signaling cascade and in particular, I will focus my presentation on addressing how 53BP1 is recruited at site of DNA damage, in a ubiquitin‐dependent manner.

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 score0.006

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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