Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter summarizes one's current understanding of the molecular mechanism of Tn 10 /IS 10 transposition and describes how double-strand cleavages are made in other complex systems including V(D)J recombination. Additional information regarding the precise role of integration host factor (IHF) in transpososome assembly has come from experiments conducted with use of the short, linear outside-end fragment assay in which transpososomes are easily detected. A mutational study on a particular insertion hotspot called HisG1 demonstrated that only the first 5 to 6 bp of the flanking sequence influenced target site utilization. Mutants of this class exhibit an altered target specificity (ATS) phenotype. Stereoselectivity was observed for each of the four chemical steps in Tn 10 transposition. First, strand nicking, hairpin formation, hairpin resolution, and target strand transfer exhibited Rp, Sp, Rp, and Rp stereoselectivities, respectively. The stereoselectivity of hairpin resolution (Rp) has only been worked out in the Tn 10 system. Finally, target strand transfer in Mu transposition and HIV integration exhibits Rp-Ps stereoselectivity. From the stereochemical model, predictions for the organization of DNA binding determinants in the active site can be made. In addition, in Tn 10 transposition hairpin resolution must necessarily precede target strand transfer to expose a 3'-OH terminus for joining to the target DNA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".