MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368342614 · doi:10.1038/s41418-023-01170-9

p53-dependent DNA repair during the DNA damage response requires actin nucleation by JMY

2023· article· en· W4368342614 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ignacio Rodriguez-Pastrana, Eleni Birli, Amanda S. Coutts

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Death and Differentiation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OxfordTrent UniversityWellcome TrustNottingham Trent UniversityWellcome
KeywordsDNADNA damageNucleationActinCell biologyChemistryGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tumour suppressor p53 is a nuclear transcription factor with key roles during DNA damage to enable a variety of cellular responses including cell cycle arrest, apoptosis and DNA repair. JMY is an actin nucleator and DNA damage-responsive protein whose sub-cellular localisation is responsive to stress and during DNA damage JMY undergoes nuclear accumulation. To gain an understanding of the wider role for nuclear JMY in transcriptional regulation, we performed transcriptomics to identify JMY-mediated changes in gene expression during the DNA damage response. We show that JMY is required for effective regulation of key p53 target genes involved in DNA repair, including XPC, XRCC5 (Ku80) and TP53I3 (PIG3). Moreover, JMY depletion or knockout leads to increased DNA damage and nuclear JMY requires its Arp2/3-dependent actin nucleation function to promote the clearance of DNA lesions. In human patient samples a lack of JMY is associated with increased tumour mutation count and in cells results in reduced cell survival and increased sensitivity to DNA damage response kinase inhibition. Collectively, we demonstrate that JMY enables p53-dependent DNA repair under genotoxic stress and suggest a role for actin in JMY nuclear activity during the DNA damage response.

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)0.000
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Death and DifferentiationSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207