Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17347517›Full record

ReviewMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR2007

Replication fork stalling at natural impediments.

Ekaterina V Mirkin, Sergei M Mirkin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 326 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
326citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

326 citing papers in PubMed, 493 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Non-canonical DNA in human and other ape telomere-to-telomere genomes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

266 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ekaterina V MirkinDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA.
Sergei M Mirkin
University of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

REPLICATION OF SIMPLE DNA REPEATSR01GM060987 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI MIRKIN, SERGEI · 2001 to 2017
$4.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM 60987NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM060987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate and complete replication of the genome in every cell division is a prerequisite of genomic stability. Thus, both prokaryotic and eukaryotic replication forks are extremely precise and robust molecular machines that have evolved to be up to the task. However, it has recently become clear that the replication fork is more of a hurdler than a runner: it must overcome various obstacles present on its way. Such obstacles can be called natural impediments to DNA replication, as opposed to external and genetic factors. Natural impediments to DNA replication are particular DNA binding proteins, unusual secondary structures in DNA, and transcription complexes that occasionally (in eukaryotes) or constantly (in prokaryotes) operate on replicating templates. This review describes the mechanisms and consequences of replication stalling at various natural impediments, with an emphasis on the role of replication stalling in genomic instability.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA ReplicationEscherichia coli ProteinsGenomic InstabilityHumansModels, GeneticReplication OriginSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsTranscription, GeneticDNA-Binding ProteinsEscherichia coli ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins

Identifiers

PMID17347517
PMCPMC1847372
OpenAlexW2160336344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.