MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32666931

Sensitivity of nucleotide excision repair-deficient human cells to ionizing radiation and cyclophosphamide.

2002· article· en· W32666931 on OpenAlexaff
David Murray, Loretta Vallee-Lucic, Elizabeth Rosenberg, Börje S. Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXeroderma pigmentosumNucleotide excision repairBiologyMutantComplementationCell cultureMolecular biologyDNA repairCancer researchGeneticsGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nucleotide excision repair (NER)-deficient rodent and human cells (such as those derived from patients with xeroderma pigmentosum, XP) are hypersensitive to UV light. Some of these cell lines, specifically certain rodent mutants with severe defects in the ERCC1 and XPF genes, are dramatically sensitive to crosslinking agents such as phosphoramide mustard (PM). These crosslink-sensitive rodent mutants also exhibit sensitization to gamma-rays under hypoxic (but not under aerated) conditions. Like their rodent counterparts, human XP cells are highly sensitive to UV light; however, none of the human XP lines, even XPF, displays extreme hypersensitivity to crosslinking agents. Studying XP cells, therefore, allows us to further assess the extent to which the phenotypic characteristic of hypoxia-specific radiosensitization of mammalian cells tracks with defects in crosslink repair (as opposed to NER). The sensitivity to PM and gamma-rays of normal human fibroblasts and human XP fibroblasts from two complementation groups, XPA and XPF, was assessed using a clonogenic survival assay. Compared with normal cells, XPA cells were not appreciably hypersensitive to PM or to gamma-rays under either aerated or hypoxic conditions. XPF cells were modestly (approximately 1.75-fold) sensitive to PM but showed no significant radiosensitization under either aerated or hypoxic conditions. Thus, although the phenotype of human XPF cells is quite different from that of "severe" rodent XPF mutants such as UV41, the characteristic of hypoxia-specific radiosensitization consistently tracks with extreme hypersensitivity to crosslinking agents and is separable from UV sensitivity (and thus from defects in NER).

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207