MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384432207 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112792

ATR protects ongoing and newly assembled DNA replication forks through distinct mechanisms

2023· article· en· W4384432207 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wendy Leung, Antoine Simoneau, Sneha Saxena, Jessica Jackson, Parasvi S. Patel, Mangsi Limbu, Alessandro Vindigni, Lee Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthGray FoundationAlvin J. Siteman Cancer CenterFoundation for Barnes-Jewish HospitalU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsReplication (statistics)Cell biologyDNA replicationComputational biologyDNABiologyChemistryGeneticsVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ATR kinase safeguards genomic integrity during S phase, but how ATR protects DNA replication forks remains incompletely understood. Here, we combine four distinct assays to analyze ATR functions at ongoing and newly assembled replication forks upon replication inhibition by hydroxyurea. At ongoing forks, ATR inhibitor (ATRi) increases MRE11- and EXO1-mediated nascent DNA degradation from PrimPol-generated, single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) gaps. ATRi also exposes template ssDNA through fork uncoupling and nascent DNA degradation. Electron microscopy reveals that ATRi reduces reversed forks by increasing gap-dependent nascent DNA degradation. At new forks, ATRi triggers MRE11- and CtIP-initiated template DNA degradation by EXO1, exposing nascent ssDNA. Upon PARP inhibition, ATRi preferentially exacerbates gap-dependent nascent DNA degradation at ongoing forks in BRCA1/2-deficient cells and disrupts the restored gap protection in BRCA1-deficient, PARP-inhibitor-resistant cells. Thus, ATR protects ongoing and new forks through distinct mechanisms, providing an extended view of ATR's functions in stabilizing replication forks.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207