MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211191046 · doi:10.3390/cancers14040878

The PRP19 Ubiquitin Ligase, Standing at the Cross-Roads of mRNA Processing and Genome Stability

2022· review· en· W4211191046 on OpenAlexafffund
Mouhamed Idrissou, Alexandre Maréchal

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyUbiquitin ligaseRNA splicingCell biologyDNA re-replicationGenome instabilityDNA repairSpliceosomeDNA ligaseDNA damageDNA replicationRNAGeneticsUbiquitinComputational biologyDNAEukaryotic DNA replicationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

mRNA processing factors are increasingly being recognized as important regulators of genome stability. By preventing and resolving RNA:DNA hybrids that form co-transcriptionally, these proteins help avoid replication-transcription conflicts and thus contribute to genome stability through their normal function in RNA maturation. Some of these factors also have direct roles in the activation of the DNA damage response and in DNA repair. One of the most intriguing cases is that of PRP19, an evolutionarily conserved essential E3 ubiquitin ligase that promotes mRNA splicing, but also participates directly in ATR activation, double-strand break resection and mitosis. Here, we review historical and recent work on PRP19 and its associated proteins, highlighting their multifarious cellular functions as central regulators of spliceosome activity, R-loop homeostasis, DNA damage signaling and repair and cell division. Finally, we discuss open questions that are bound to shed further light on the functions of PRP19-containing complexes in both normal and cancer cells.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207