Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20177396›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2010

Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork.

Dana Branzei, Marco Foiani

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 516 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
516citing papers in PubMed
31.4field-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

516 citing papers in PubMed, 767 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. RPA-independent activation of the ATR/CHK1 pathway.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

456 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.

Dana BranzeiFondazione IFOM, Istituto FIRC di Oncologia Molecolare, IFOM-IEO campus, Via Adamello 16, 20139 Milan, Italy. dana.branzei@ifom-ieo-campus.it
Marco Foiani
FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology · IT

Funding

European Research Council 242928Telethon GGP08066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aberrant DNA replication is a major source of the mutations and chromosome rearrangements that are associated with pathological disorders. When replication is compromised, DNA becomes more prone to breakage. Secondary structures, highly transcribed DNA sequences and damaged DNA stall replication forks, which then require checkpoint factors and specialized enzymatic activities for their stabilization and subsequent advance. These mechanisms ensure that the local DNA damage response, which enables replication fork progression and DNA repair in S phase, is coupled with cell cycle transitions. The mechanisms that operate in eukaryotic cells to promote replication fork integrity and coordinate replication with other aspects of chromosome maintenance are becoming clear.

Indexed as

Genomic InstabilityAnimalsDNADNA DamageDNA RepairDNA ReplicationHumansModels, BiologicalNucleic Acid ConformationReplication OriginDNA

Identifiers

PMID20177396
OpenAlexW2063979868

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.