MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391469731 · doi:10.1016/j.jbc.2024.105708

Loss of Dna2 fidelity results in decreased Exo1-mediated resection at DNA double-strand breaks

2024· article· en· W4391469731 on OpenAlexafffund
Aditya Mojumdar, Courtney Granger, Martine D. Lunke, Jennifer A. Cobb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNAChemistryBiophysicsFidelityDouble strandDNA mismatch repairDNA damageDNA repairCell biologyBiochemistryBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A DNA double-strand break (DSB) is one of the most dangerous types of DNA damage that is repaired largely by homologous recombination or nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ). The interplay of repair factors at the break directs which pathway is used, and a subset of these factors also function in more mutagenic alternative (alt) repair pathways. Resection is a key event in repair pathway choice and extensive resection, which is a hallmark of homologous recombination, and it is mediated by two nucleases, Exo1 and Dna2. We observed differences in resection and repair outcomes in cells harboring nuclease-dead dna2-1 compared with dna2Δ pif1-m2 that could be attributed to the level of Exo1 recovered at DSBs. Cells harboring dna2-1 showed reduced Exo1 localization, increased NHEJ, and a greater resection defect compared with cells where DNA2 was deleted. Both the resection defect and the increased rate of NHEJ in dna2-1 mutants were reversed upon deletion of KU70 or ectopic expression of Exo1. By contrast, when DNA2 was deleted, Exo1 and Ku70 recovery levels did not change; however, Nej1 increased as did the frequency of alt-end joining/microhomology-mediated end-joining repair. Our findings demonstrate that decreased Exo1 at DSBs contributed to the resection defect in cells expressing inactive Dna2 and highlight the complexity of understanding how functionally redundant factors are regulated in vivo to promote genome stability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological Chemistry→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→