ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2010
Cdc5 blocks in vivo Rad53 activity, but not in situ activity (ISA).
Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA damage checkpoint execution and the rules of its disengagement.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Review
- Dbf4: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
DNA damage promotes the activation of a signal transduction cascade referred to as the DNA damage checkpoint. This pathway initiates with the Mec1/ATR kinase, which then phosphorylates the Rad53/Chk2 kinase. Mec1 phosphorylation of Rad53 is then thought to promote Rad53 autophosphorylation, ultimately leading to a fully active Rad53 molecule that can go on to phosphorylate substrates important for DNA damage resistance. In the absence of DNA repair, this checkpoint is eventually downregulated in a Cdc5-dependent process referred to as checkpoint adaptation. Recently, we showed that overexpression of Cdc5 leads to checkpoint inactivation and loss of the strong electrophoretic shift associated with Rad53 inactivation. Interestingly, this same overexpression did not strongly inhibit Rad53 autophosphorylation activity as measured by the in situ assay (ISA). The ISA involves incubating the re-natured Rad53 protein with γ ³²P labeled ATP after electrophoresis and western blotting. Using a newly identified Rad53 target, we show that despite strong ISA activity, Rad53 does not maintain phosphorylation of this substrate. We hypothesize that, during adaptation, Rad53 may be in a unique state in which it maintains some Mec1 phosphorylation, but does not have the auto-phosphorylations required for full activity towards exogenous substrates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.