ArticleMolecular and cellular biology2005
Mechanisms of transcription-replication collisions in bacteria.
Article in Molecular and cellular biology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 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
106 citing papers in PubMed.
- Replication-transcription collisions impose DNA strand-specific constraints on gene length in bacteria.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Induced DNA double strand breaks by genotoxic drugs occur at active transcription H3K36 tri-methylation sites.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Slow RNAPII elongation enhances naive pluripotency rewiring while maintaining high replication fork speed.Science advances · 2026Article
- Interplay Between DNA Polymerase, RNA Polymerase, and RNase H1 During Head-On Transcription-Replication Conflict.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- RNA polymerase II is a polar roadblock to a progressing DNA fork.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The paradox of R-loops: guardians of the genome or drivers of disease?Genome research · 2025Review
- Transcription-Replication Conflicts: Unlocking New Frontiers in Cancer.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025Review
- pTripleTREP - A vector for tightly controlled expression and purification of virulence factors in Staphylococcus aureus.Microbial cell factories · 2025Article
- Gene syntaxes modulate gene expression and circuit behavior on plasmids.Journal of biological engineering · 2025Article
- Hallmarks of DNA replication stress responses in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Concise Overview of Methodologies Employed in the Study of Bacterial DNA Replication.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Clues to transcription/replication collision-induced DNA damage: it was RNAP, in the chromosome, with the fork.FEBS letters · 2025Review
- The Possible Crystallization Process in the Origin of Bacteria, Archaea, Viruses, and Mobile Elements.Biology · 2024Article
- Origin, evolution, and maintenance of gene-strand bias in bacteria.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- TOP1 and R-loops facilitate transcriptional DSBs at hypertranscribed cancer driver genes.iScience · 2024Article
- Processing of stalled replication forks in Bacillus subtilis.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- Expanding the genetic toolbox for the obligate human pathogenFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Review
- Regulation of ribosomal RNA gene copy number, transcription and nucleolus organization in eukaryotes.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2023Review
46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While collisions between replication and transcription in bacteria are deemed inevitable, the fine details of the interplay between the two machineries are poorly understood. In this study, we evaluate the effects of transcription on the replication fork progression in vivo, by using electrophoresis analysis of replication intermediates. Studying Escherichia coli plasmids, which carry constitutive or inducible promoters in different orientations relative to the replication origin, we show that the mutual orientation of the two processes determines their mode of interaction. Replication elongation appears not to be affected by transcription proceeding in the codirectional orientation. Head-on transcription, by contrast, leads to severe inhibition of the replication fork progression. Furthermore, we evaluate the mechanism of this inhibition by limiting the area of direct contact between the two machineries. We observe that replication pausing zones coincide exactly with transcribed DNA segments. We conclude, therefore, that the replication fork is most likely attenuated upon direct physical interaction with the head-on transcription machinery.
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.