Two independent DNA repair pathways cause mutagenesis in template switching deficient <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upon DNA replication stress, cells utilize the postreplication repair pathway to repair single-stranded DNA and maintain genome integrity. Postreplication repair is divided into 2 branches: error-prone translesion synthesis, signaled by proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) monoubiquitination, and error-free template switching, signaled by PCNA polyubiquitination. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Rad5 is involved in both branches of repair during DNA replication stress. When the PCNA polyubiquitination function of Rad5 s disrupted, Rad5 recruits translesion synthesis polymerases to stalled replication forks, resulting in mutagenic repair. Details of how mutagenic repair is carried out, as well as the relationship between Rad5-mediated mutagenic repair and the canonical PCNA-mediated mutagenic repair, remain to be understood. We find that Rad5-mediated mutagenic repair requires the translesion synthesis polymerase ζ but does not require other yeast translesion polymerase activities. Furthermore, we show that Rad5-mediated mutagenic repair is independent of PCNA binding by Rev1 and so is separable from canonical mutagenic repair. In the absence of error-free template switching, both modes of mutagenic repair contribute additively to replication stress response in a replication timing-independent manner. Cellular contexts where error-free template switching is compromised are not simply laboratory phenomena, as we find that a natural variant in RAD5 is defective in PCNA polyubiquitination and therefore defective in error-free repair, resulting in Rad5- and PCNA-mediated mutagenic repair. Our results highlight the importance of Rad5 in regulating spontaneous mutagenesis and genetic diversity in S. cerevisiae through different modes of postreplication repair.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".