MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Interplay between Np95 and Eme1 in the DNA damage response

2009· article· en· W321033079 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helena Mistry, Lianne Gibson, Ji Weon Yun, Haya Sarras, Laura Tamblyn, John Peter McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChromatinDNA damageUbiquitin ligaseEndonucleaseCell biologyDNA repairUbiquitinChromatin remodelingDNA replicationGeneticsDNAMolecular biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methyl methansulfonate UV sensitive clone 81 (Mus81) and essential meiotic endonuclease 1 (Eme1) form a heterodimeric endonuclease that preserves genomic integrity through the repair of DNA replication‐associated damage. Despite its role as genome guardian and tumour suppressor, our understanding of how this endonuclease is coordinated during the DNA damage response is poor. In order to identify other proteins that interact with Mus81‐Eme1, our laboratory conducted a protein interaction screen to identify and characterize proteins that interact with Eme1. One candidate identified in this screen was found to encode the carboxy‐terminal domain of Np95, a chromatin‐associated ubiquitin ligase. Np95 and Eme1 co‐localize on nuclear chromatin following exposure of cells to camptothecin, an agent that promotes the collapse of replication forks. The observed co‐localization following DNA damage was found to be dependent on an intact RING finger, the structural motif that encodes the E3 ubiquitin ligase activity of Np95. These findings for the first time, link the tumour‐suppressor Mus81‐Eme1 with the replication‐associated chromatin modifier functions of Np95 in the DNA damage response. Supported by grants from the Canadian Cancer Society through the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Cancer Research Society.

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 score0.001
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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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