PARP1 condensates differentially partition DNA repair proteins and enhance DNA ligation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) is one of the first responders to DNA damage and plays crucial roles in recruiting DNA repair proteins through its activity - poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation). The enrichment of DNA repair proteins at sites of DNA damage has been described as the formation of a biomolecular condensate. However, it remains unclear how exactly PARP1 and PARylation contribute to the formation and organization of DNA repair condensates. Using recombinant human single-strand repair proteins in vitro, we find that PARP1 readily forms viscous biomolecular condensates in a DNA-dependent manner and that this depends on its three zinc finger (ZnF) domains. PARylation enhances PARP1 condensation in a PAR chain length-dependent manner and increases the internal dynamics of PARP1 condensates. DNA and single-strand break repair proteins XRCC1, LigIII, Polβ, and FUS partition in PARP1 condensates, although in different patterns. While Polβ and FUS are both homogeneously mixed within PARP1 condensates, FUS enrichment is greatly enhanced upon PARylation whereas Polβ partitioning is not. XRCC1 and LigIII display an inhomogeneous organization within PARP1 condensates; their enrichment in these multiphase condensates is enhanced by PARylation. Functionally, PARP1 condensates concentrate short DNA fragments, which correlates with PARP1 clusters compacting long DNA and bridging DNA ends. Furthermore, the presence of PARP1 condensates significantly promotes DNA ligation upon PARylation. These findings provide insight into how PARP1 condensation and PARylation regulate the assembly and biochemical activities of DNA repair factors, which may inform on how PARPs function in DNA repair foci and other PAR-driven condensates in cells.
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".