RNA-mediated double-strand break repair by end-joining mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA are challenging to repair. Cells employ at least three DSB-repair mechanisms, with a preference for non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) over homologous recombination (HR) and microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ). While most eukaryotic DNA is transcribed into RNA, providing complementary genetic information, much remains unknown about the direct impact of RNA on DSB-repair outcomes and its role in DSB-repair via end joining. Here, we show that both sense and antisense-transcript RNAs impact DSB repair in a sequence-specific manner in wild-type human and yeast cells. Depending on its sequence complementarity with the broken DNA ends, a transcript RNA can promote repair of a DSB or a double-strand gap in its DNA gene via NHEJ or MMEJ, independently from DNA synthesis. The results demonstrate a role of transcript RNA in directing the way DSBs are repaired in DNA, suggesting that RNA may directly modulate genome stability and evolution.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".