chi sequences switch the RecBCD helicase–nuclease complex from degradative to replicative modes during the completion of DNA replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately completing DNA replication when two forks converge is essential to genomic stability. The RecBCD helicase-nuclease complex plays a central role in completion by promoting resection and joining of the excess DNA created when replisomes converge. chi sequences alter RecBCD activity and localize with crossover hotspots during sexual events in bacteria, yet their functional role during chromosome replication remains unknown. Here, we use two-dimensional agarose gel analysis to show that chi induces replication on substrates containing convergent forks. The induced replication is processive but uncoupled with respect to leading and lagging strand synthesis and can be suppressed by ter sites which limit replisome progression. Our observations demonstrate that convergent replisomes create a substrate that is processed by RecBCD and that chi, when encountered, switches RecBCD from a degradative to replicative function. We propose that chi serves to functionally differentiate DNA ends created during completion, which require degradation, from those created by chromosomal double-strand breaks, which require resynthesis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".