MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3216865845 · doi:10.1016/j.str.2021.11.002

Cryo-EM structures and biochemical insights into heterotrimeric PCNA regulation of DNA ligase.

2022· article· en· W3216865845 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDNA ligaseProliferating cell nuclear antigenDNA clampDNA LigasesDNA repairDNADNA polymerase muHeterotrimeric G proteinDNA mismatch repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA ligases act in the final step of many DNA repair pathways and are commonly regulated by the DNA sliding clamp proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), but there are limited insights into the physical basis for this regulation. Here, we use single-particle cryoelectron microscopy (cryo-EM) to analyze an archaeal DNA ligase and heterotrimeric PCNA in complex with a single-strand DNA break. The cryo-EM structures highlight a continuous DNA-binding surface formed between DNA ligase and PCNA that supports the distorted conformation of the DNA break undergoing repair and contributes to PCNA stimulation of DNA ligation. DNA ligase is conformationally flexible within the complex, with its domains fully ordered only when encircling the repaired DNA to form a stacked ring structure with PCNA. The structures highlight DNA ligase structural transitions while docked on PCNA, changes in DNA conformation during ligation, and the potential for DNA ligase domains to regulate PCNA accessibility to other repair factors.

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 score0.005

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→