Genetic and physical interactions between Polη and Rev1 in response to UV-induced DNA damage in mammalian cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to UV irradiation, translesion DNA synthesis (TLS) utilizes specialized DNA polymerases to bypass replication-blocking lesions. In a well-established polymerase switch model, Polη is thought to be a preferred TLS polymerase to insert correct nucleotides across from the thymine dimer, and Rev1 plays a scaffold role through physical interaction with Polη and the Rev7 subunit of Polζ for continual DNA synthesis. Defective Polη causes a variant form of xeroderma pigmentosum (XPV), a disease with predisposition to sunlight-induced skin cancer. Previous studies revealed that expression of Rev1 alone is sufficient to confer enhanced UV damage tolerance in mammalian cells, which depends on its physical interaction with Polζ but is independent of Polη, a conclusion that appears to contradict current literature on the critical roles of Polη in TLS. To test a hypothesis that the Rev1 catalytic activity is required to backup Polη in TLS, we found that the Rev1 polymerase-dead mutation is synergistic with either Polη mutation or the Polη-interaction mutation in response to UV-induced DNA damage. On the other hand, functional complementation of polH cells by Polη relies on its physical interaction with Rev1. Hence, our studies reveal critical interactions between Rev1 and Polη in response to UV damage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".