Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16518468›Full record

ReviewPLoS genetics2006

Making ends meet: repairing breaks in bacterial DNA by non-homologous end-joining.

Richard Bowater, Aidan J Doherty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. CRISPR-Cas9-driven genome editing inFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  8. CRISPR-Cas systems in enterococci.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. CRISPR-Cas9-assisted genome editing inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. A Novel Breakthrough inFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Richard BowaterSchool of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Aidan J Doherty

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are one of the most dangerous forms of DNA lesion that can result in genomic instability and cell death. Therefore cells have developed elaborate DSB-repair pathways to maintain the integrity of genomic DNA. There are two major pathways for the repair of DSBs in eukaryotes: homologous recombination and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). Until very recently, the NHEJ pathway had been thought to be restricted to the eukarya. However, an evolutionarily related NHEJ apparatus has now been identified and characterized in the prokarya. Here we review the recent discoveries concerning bacterial NHEJ and discuss the possible origins of this repair system. We also examine the insights gained from the recent cellular and biochemical studies of this DSB-repair process and discuss the possible cellular roles of an NHEJ pathway in the life-cycle of prokaryotes and phages.

Indexed as

DNA RepairRecombination, GeneticBacteriophagesDNA, BacterialDNA DamageDNA HelicasesDNA LigasesHumansModels, BiologicalPhylogenyProtein Structure, TertiaryDNA, BacterialDNA HelicasesDNA Ligases

Identifiers

PMID16518468
PMCPMC1378119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.