MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195010072 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25252-9

PARylation prevents the proteasomal degradation of topoisomerase I DNA-protein crosslinks and induces their deubiquitylation

2021· article· en· W3195010072 on OpenAlexafffund
Yilun Sun, Jiji Chen, Shar-yin N. Huang, Yijun Su, Wenjie Wang, Keli Agama, Sourav Saha, Lisa M. Jenkins, John M. Pascal, Yves Pommier

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsProteasomeUbiquitinDNA repairCell biologyTopoisomeraseChromatinPoly ADP ribose polymeraseChemistryDNA damageBiologyDNAMolecular biologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poly(ADP)-ribosylation (PARylation) regulates chromatin structure and recruits DNA repair proteins. Using single-molecule fluorescence microscopy to track topoisomerase I (TOP1) in live cells, we found that sustained PARylation blocked the repair of TOP1 DNA-protein crosslinks (TOP1-DPCs) in a similar fashion as inhibition of the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS). PARylation of TOP1-DPC was readily revealed by inhibiting poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG), indicating the otherwise transient and reversible PARylation of the DPCs. As the UPS is a key repair mechanism for TOP1-DPCs, we investigated the impact of TOP1-DPC PARylation on the proteasome and found that the proteasome is unable to associate with and digest PARylated TOP1-DPCs. In addition, PARylation recruits the deubiquitylating enzyme USP7 to reverse the ubiquitylation of PARylated TOP1-DPCs. Our work identifies PARG as repair factor for TOP1-DPCs by enabling the proteasomal digestion of TOP1-DPCs. It also suggests the potential regulatory role of PARylation for the repair of a broad range of DPCs.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations72
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207