Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16936322›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2006

RPA and PCNA suppress formation of large deletion errors by yeast DNA polymerase delta.

John M Fortune, Carrie M Stith, Grace E Kissling, Peter M J Burgers, Thomas A Kunkel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Extrinsic proofreading.DNA repair · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Enhanced cytarabine-induced killing in OGG1-deficient acute myeloid leukemia cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. DNA polymerase δ proofreads errors made by DNA polymerase ε.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John M FortuneLaboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, DHHS, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Carrie M Stith
Grace E Kissling
Peter M J Burgers
Thomas A Kunkel
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

ENZYMOLOGY OF REPLICATION OF YEAST CHROMOSOMAL DNAR01GM032431 · NIGMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BURGERS, PETER M · 1985 to 2015
$6.5M
Structure-Function Studies Of DNA Replication FidelityZ01ES065070 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI KUNKEL, THOMAS A · 1991 to 2008
$4.3M
NIEHS STATISTICAL CONSULTING SERVICEZ01ES045005 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI PEDDADA, SHYAMAL · 1997 to 2008
$741k
Intramural NIH HHSNIGMS NIH HHS GM32431NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM032431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In fulfilling its biosynthetic roles in nuclear replication and in several types of repair, DNA polymerase delta (pol delta) is assisted by replication protein A (RPA), the single-stranded DNA-binding protein complex, and by the processivity clamp proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA). Here we report the effects of these accessory proteins on the fidelity of DNA synthesis in vitro by yeast pol delta. We show that when RPA and PCNA are included in reactions containing pol delta, rates for single base errors are similar to those generated by pol delta alone, indicating that pol delta itself is by far the prime determinant of fidelity for single base errors. However, the rate of deleting multiple nucleotides between directly repeated sequences is reduced by approximately 10-fold in the presence of either RPA or PCNA, and by > or =90-fold when both proteins are present. We suggest that PCNA and RPA suppress large deletion errors by preventing the primer terminus at a repeat from fraying and/or from relocating and annealing to a downstream repeat. Strong suppression of deletions by PCNA and RPA suggests that they may contribute to the high replication fidelity needed to stably maintain eukaryotic genomes that contain abundant repetitive sequences.

Indexed as

Base Pair MismatchDNADNA Polymerase IIIFungal ProteinsNucleotidesProliferating Cell Nuclear AntigenRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidReplication Protein ASequence DeletionDNADNA Polymerase IIIFungal ProteinsNucleotidesProliferating Cell Nuclear AntigenReplication Protein A

Identifiers

PMID16936322
PMCPMC1636344
OpenAlexW2124113142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.