Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20842177›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2010

Pathways of mammalian replication fork restart.

Eva Petermann, Thomas Helleday

Abstract 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 232 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
232citing papers in PubMed
14.7field-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

232 citing papers in PubMed, 335 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. DNA Holliday Junction: History, Regulation and Bioactivity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. cGAS/STING cross-talks with cell cycle and potentiates cancer immunotherapy.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2022
    Review
  20. Review

172 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eva PetermannUniversity of Birmingham, UK. e.petermann@bham.ac.uk
Thomas Helleday
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-molecule analyses of DNA replication have greatly advanced our understanding of mammalian replication restart. Several proteins that are not part of the core replication machinery promote the efficient restart of replication forks that have been stalled by replication inhibitors, suggesting that bona fide fork restart pathways exist in mammalian cells. Different models of replication fork restart can be envisaged, based on the involvement of DNA helicases, nucleases, homologous recombination factors and the importance of DNA double-strand break formation.

Indexed as

DNA ReplicationAnimalsBloom SyndromeDNADNA, CruciformDNA DamageDNA HelicasesHumansMammalsModels, GeneticDNADNA, CruciformDNA Helicases

Identifiers

PMID20842177
OpenAlexW2007889926

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.