MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402536900 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114738

Protein UFMylation regulates early events during ribosomal DNA-damage response

2024· article· en· W4402536900 on OpenAlexafffund
Pudchalaluck Panichnantakul, Lisbeth C. Aguilar, Evan Daynard, Mackenzie Guest, Colten Peters, Jackie Vogel, Marlene Oeffinger

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsDNA damageRibosomal proteinDNABiologyCell biologyRibosomal RNAComputational biologyGeneticsRibosomeGeneRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The highly repetitive and transcriptionally active ribosomal DNA (rDNA) genes are exceedingly susceptible to genotoxic stress. Induction of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in rDNA repeats is associated with ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated (ATM)-dependent rDNA silencing and nucleolar reorganization where rDNA is segregated into nucleolar caps. However, the regulatory events underlying this response remain elusive. Here, we identify protein UFMylation as essential for rDNA-damage response in human cells. We further show the only ubiquitin-fold modifier 1 (UFM1)-E3 ligase UFL1 and its binding partner DDRGK1 localize to nucleolar caps upon rDNA damage and that UFL1 loss impairs ATM activation and rDNA transcriptional silencing, leading to reduced rDNA segregation. Moreover, analysis of nuclear and nucleolar UFMylation targets in response to DSB induction further identifies key DNA-repair factors including ATM, in addition to chromatin and actin network regulators. Taken together, our data provide evidence of an essential role for UFMylation in orchestrating rDNA DSB 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 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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207