Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23087905›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2012

Implications of fidelity difference between the leading and the lagging strand of DNA for the acceleration of evolution.

Mitsuru Furusawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Inherent Asymmetry of DNA Replication.Annual review of cell and developmental biology · 2017
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Generation of rodent malaria parasites with a high mutation rate by destructing proofreading activity of DNA polymerase δ.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2014
    Article
  8. Review
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

1 author.

Mitsuru FurusawaNeo-Morgan Laboratory Incorporated, Biotechnology Research Center Kawasaki, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Without exceptions, genomic DNA of living organisms is replicated using the leading and the lagging strand. In a conventional idea of mutagenesis accompanying DNA replication, mutations are thought to be introduced stochastically and evenly into the two daughter DNAs. Here, however, we hypothesized that the fidelity of the lagging strand is lower than that of the leading strand. Our simulations with a simplified model DNA clearly indicated that, even if mutation rates exceeded the so-called threshold values, an original genotype was guaranteed in the pedigree and, at the same time, the enlargement of diversity was attained with repeated generations. According to our lagging-strand-biased-mutagenesis model, mutator microorganisms were established in which mutations biased to the lagging strand were introduced by deleting the proofreading activity of DNA polymerase. These mutators ("disparity mutators") grew normally and had a quick and extraordinarily high adaptability against very severe circumstances. From the viewpoint of the fidelity difference between the leading and the lagging strand, the basic conditions for the acceleration of evolution are examined. The plausible molecular mechanism for the faster molecular clocks observed in birds and mammals is discussed, with special reference to the accelerated evolution in the past. Possible applications in different fields are also discussed.

Indexed as

accelerationbiased-mutagenesisevolutionleading/lagging strandpolymerase δproofreadingreplicore

Identifiers

PMID23087905
PMCPMC3472163

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.