MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221052159 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110536

BMI-1 regulates DNA end resection and homologous recombination repair

2022· article· en· W4221052159 on OpenAlexafffund
Amira Fitieh, Andrew J. Locke, Fatemeh Mashayekhi, Fajr Khaliqdina, Ajit Kumar Sharma, Ismail Hassan Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsRAD51Homologous recombinationDNA damageGene silencingNon-homologous end joiningDNA repairBiologyDNAResectionCell biologyGeneticsGeneMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BMI-1 is an essential regulator of transcriptional silencing during development. Recently, the role of BMI-1 in the DNA damage response has gained much attention, but the exact mechanism of how BMI-1 participates in the process is unclear. Here, we establish a role for BMI-1 in the repair of DNA double-strand breaks by homologous recombination (HR), where it promotes DNA end resection. Mechanistically, BMI-1 mediates DNA end resection by facilitating the recruitment of CtIP, thus allowing RPA and RAD51 accumulation at DNA damage sites. Interestingly, treatment with transcription inhibitors rescues the DNA end resection defects of BMI-1-depleted cells, suggesting BMI-1-dependent transcriptional silencing mediates DNA end resection. Moreover, we find that H2A ubiquitylation at K119 (H2AK119ub) promotes end resection. Taken together, our results identify BMI-1-mediated transcriptional silencing and promotion of H2AK119ub deposition as essential regulators of DNA end resection and thus the progression of HR.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207