DNA Repair Patch-mediated Double Strand DNA Break Formation in Human Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the mechanism of double strand DNA break formation in mammalian cells, an in vitro assay was established using closed circular DNA containing two uracils on opposite DNA strands (18 and 30 base pairs apart) and extracts prepared from human cells. In this assay, formation of double strand breaks was detected by the conversion of circular DNA to linear DNA. Approximately 4-fold more double strand DNA breaks were produced by extracts from cells deficient in DNA ligase I (46BR) relative to those produced by extracts from control cells (MRC5, derived from a clinically normal individual). In parallel with the amount of double strand DNA breaks, extracts from 46BR cells produced longer repair patches (up to 24 bases in length) than those from MRC5 cells (typically <5 bases long). When purified DNA ligase I was added to 46BR extracts to complement the DNA ligase deficiency, only a negligible difference was found between the amount of doublestrand DNA breaks or the repair patch size generated in the assay relative to MRC5 extracts. Together, our data demonstrate that double strand DNA breaks are produced through formation of DNA repair patches. We refer to this process of double strand break formation as the "DNA repair patch-mediated pathway."
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".