Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19503795›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Comparative genome-wide screening identifies a conserved doxorubicin repair network that is diploid specific in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Tammy J Westmoreland, Sajith M Wickramasekara, Andrew Y Guo, Alice L Selim, Tiffany S Winsor, Arno L Greenleaf, Kimberly L Blackwell, John A Olson, Jeffrey R Marks, Craig B Bennett

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Transcription Regulatory ProteinmicroPublication biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multiple roles of CTDK-I throughout the cell.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tammy J WestmorelandDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Sajith M Wickramasekara
Andrew Y Guo
Alice L Selim
Tiffany S Winsor
Arno L Greenleaf
Kimberly L Blackwell
John A Olson
Jeffrey R Marks
Craig B Bennett
Duke Medical Center · USNorth Carolina School of Science and Mathematics · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The chemotherapeutic doxorubicin (DOX) induces DNA double-strand break (DSB) damage. In order to identify conserved genes that mediate DOX resistance, we screened the Saccharomyces cerevisiae diploid deletion collection and identified 376 deletion strains in which exposure to DOX was lethal or severely reduced growth fitness. This diploid screen identified 5-fold more DOX resistance genes than a comparable screen using the isogenic haploid derivative. Since DSB damage is repaired primarily by homologous recombination in yeast, and haploid cells lack an available DNA homolog in G1 and early S phase, this suggests that our diploid screen may have detected the loss of repair functions in G1 or early S phase prior to complete DNA replication. To test this, we compared the relative DOX sensitivity of 30 diploid deletion mutants identified under our screening conditions to their isogenic haploid counterpart, most of which (n = 26) were not detected in the haploid screen. For six mutants (bem1Delta, ctf4Delta, ctk1Delta, hfi1Delta,nup133Delta, tho2Delta) DOX-induced lethality was absent or greatly reduced in the haploid as compared to the isogenic diploid derivative. Moreover, unlike WT, all six diploid mutants displayed severe G1/S phase cell cycle progression defects when exposed to DOX and some were significantly enhanced (ctk1Delta and hfi1Delta) or deficient (tho2Delta) for recombination. Using these and other "THO2-like" hypo-recombinogenic, diploid-specific DOX sensitive mutants (mft1Delta, thp1Delta, thp2Delta) we utilized known genetic/proteomic interactions to construct an interactive functional genomic network which predicted additional DOX resistance genes not detected in the primary screen. Most (76%) of the DOX resistance genes detected in this diploid yeast screen are evolutionarily conserved suggesting the human orthologs are candidates for mediating DOX resistance by impacting on checkpoint and recombination functions in G1 and/or early S phases.

Indexed as

DiploidyGenome, FungalCell CycleDNA DamageDNA RepairDoxorubicinGene DeletionGenomicsKiller Factors, YeastMitochondriaMutationProteomicsRecombination, GeneticSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsDoxorubicinKiller Factors, YeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae Proteinszymocin

Identifiers

PMID19503795
PMCPMC2688081
OpenAlexW1968426696

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.