ArticleMolecular and cellular biology2000
Rfc5, in cooperation with rad24, controls DNA damage checkpoints throughout the cell cycle in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Article in Molecular and cellular biology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA Damage and Replication Stress Checkpoints.Annual review of biochemistry · 2025Review
- Mechanisms of loading and release of the 9-1-1 checkpoint clamp.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2022Article
- Negative effects of heat stress on ovarian tissue in female rabbit.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Combining Proteomics and Metabolomics to Analyze the Effects of Spaceflight on Rice Progeny.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Identification of RFC5 as a novel potential prognostic biomarker in lung cancer through bioinformatics analysis.Oncology letters · 2018Article
- Subunit Interaction Differences Between the Replication Factor C Complexes inFrontiers in plant science · 2018Article
- Structural studies of RFCEMBO reports · 2017Article
- Autophagy in DNA damage response.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
- Characterization of the interaction between Rfa1 and Rad24 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.PloS one · 2015Article
- Ddc2 mediates Mec1 activation through a Ddc1- or Dpb11-independent mechanism.PLoS genetics · 2014Article
- Is PCNA unloading the central function of the Elg1/ATAD5 replication factor C-like complex?Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2013Review
- DNA damage and autophagy.Mutation research · 2011Review
- Rfc5p regulates alternate RFC complex functions in sister chromatid pairing reactions in budding yeast.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2010Article
- The S-phase checkpoint is required to respond to R-loops accumulated in THO mutants.Molecular and cellular biology · 2009Article
- A tale of two tails: activation of DNA damage checkpoint kinase Mec1/ATR by the 9-1-1 clamp and by Dpb11/TopBP1.DNA repair · 2009Review
- Smc5-Smc6 complex suppresses gross chromosomal rearrangements mediated by break-induced replications.DNA repair · 2008Article
- Role of Elg1 protein in double strand break repair.Nucleic acids research · 2007Article
- Identification of differentially expressed genes in HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2007Article
- The checkpoint clamp activates Mec1 kinase during initiation of the DNA damage checkpoint.Molecular cell · 2006Article
- Contrasting effects of Elg1-RFC and Ctf18-RFC inactivation in the absence of fully functional RFC in fission yeast.Nucleic acids research · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RAD24 and RFC5 are required for DNA damage checkpoint control in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Rad24 is structurally related to replication factor C (RFC) subunits and associates with RFC subunits Rfc2, Rfc3, Rfc4, and Rfc5. rad24Delta mutants are defective in all the G(1)-, S-, and G(2)/M-phase DNA damage checkpoints, whereas the rfc5-1 mutant is impaired only in the S-phase DNA damage checkpoint. Both the RFC subunits and Rad24 contain a consensus sequence for nucleoside triphosphate (NTP) binding. To determine whether the NTP-binding motif is important for Rad24 function, we mutated the conserved lysine(115) residue in this motif. The rad24-K115E mutation, which changes lysine to glutamate, confers a complete loss-of-function phenotype, while the rad24-K115R mutation, which changes lysine to arginine, shows no apparent phenotype. Although neither rfc5-1 nor rad24-K115R single mutants are defective in the G(1)- and G(2)/M-phase DNA damage checkpoints, rfc5-1 rad24-K115R double mutants become defective in these checkpoints. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments revealed that Rad24(K115R) fails to interact with the RFC proteins in rfc5-1 mutants. Together, these results indicate that RFC5, like RAD24, functions in all the G(1)-, S- and G(2)/M-phase DNA damage checkpoints and suggest that the interaction of Rad24 with the RFC proteins is essential for DNA damage checkpoint control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.