The DNAPKcs long-range C-NHEJ complex is required for blunt DNA end joining when XLF is weakened
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Canonical non-homologous end joining (C-NHEJ) factors can assemble into a long-range (LR) complex with DNA ends relatively far apart that contains DNAPKcs, XLF, XRCC4, LIG4, and the KU heterodimer and a short-range (SR) complex lacking DNAPKcs that has the ends positioned for ligation. Since the SR complex can form de novo , the role of the LR complex (i.e., DNAPKcs) for chromosomal EJ is unclear. We have examined EJ of chromosomal blunt DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), and found that DNAPKcs is significantly less important than XLF and XRCC4 for such EJ. However, weakening XLF via disrupting interaction interfaces (e.g., disrupting the XLF homodimer interface) causes a marked requirement for DNAPKcs, its kinase activity, and its ABCDE-cluster autophosphorylation sites for blunt DSB EJ. In contrast, other aspects of genome maintenance are sensitive to DNAPKcs kinase inhibition in a manner that is not further enhanced by XLF loss (i.e., suppression of homology-directed repair and structural variants, and IR-resistance). We suggest that DNAPKcs is required to position a weakened XLF in an LR complex that can transition into a functional SR complex for blunt DSB EJ, but also has distinct functions for other aspects of genome maintenance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".