When DNA-damage responses meet innate and adaptive immunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When cells proliferate, stress on DNA replication or exposure to endogenous or external insults frequently results in DNA damage. DNA-Damage Response (DDR) networks are complex signaling pathways used by multicellular organisms to prevent DNA damage. Depending on the type of broken DNA, the various pathways, Base-Excision Repair (BER), Nucleotide Excision Repair (NER), Mismatch Repair (MMR), Homologous Recombination (HR), Non-Homologous End-Joining (NHEJ), Interstrand Crosslink (ICL) repair, and other direct repair pathways, can be activated separately or in combination to repair DNA damage. To preserve homeostasis, innate and adaptive immune responses are effective defenses against endogenous mutation or invasion by external pathogens. It is interesting to note that new research keeps showing how closely DDR components and the immune system are related. DDR and immunological response are linked by immune effectors such as the cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS)-Stimulator of Interferon Genes (STING) pathway. These effectors act as sensors of DNA damage-caused immune response. Furthermore, DDR components themselves function in immune responses to trigger the generation of inflammatory cytokines in a cascade or even trigger programmed cell death. Defective DDR components are known to disrupt genomic stability and compromise immunological responses, aggravating immune imbalance and leading to serious diseases such as cancer and autoimmune disorders. This study examines the most recent developments in the interaction between DDR elements and immunological responses. The DDR network's immune modulators' dual roles may offer new perspectives on treating infectious disorders linked to DNA damage, including cancer, and on the development of target immunotherapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".