Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23637285›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2013

Rescuing stalled or damaged replication forks.

Joseph T P Yeeles, Jérôme Poli, Kenneth J Marians, Philippe Pasero

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 157 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
157citing 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

157 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The function of Mgs1/WRNIP1 in genome maintenance.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Generation and Repair of Postreplication Gaps in Escherichia coli.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2023
    Review
  18. Assembly of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

97 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

4 authors.

Joseph T P YeelesMolecular Biology Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Jérôme Poli
Kenneth J Marians
Philippe Pasero

Funding

MECHANISMS OF DNA REPLICATIONR37GM034557 · NIGMS · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI MARIANS, KENNETH J · 2001 to 2010
$5.8M
MECHANISMS OF LAGGING STRAND SYNTHESISR01GM034557 · NIGMS · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI MARIANS, KENNETH J · 1985 to 2018
$5.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM34557NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM034557NIGMS NIH HHS R37 GM034557
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, an increasing number of studies have shown that prokaryotes and eukaryotes are armed with sophisticated mechanisms to restart stalled or collapsed replication forks. Although these processes are better understood in bacteria, major breakthroughs have also been made to explain how fork restart mechanisms operate in eukaryotic cells. In particular, repriming on the leading strand and fork regression are now established as critical for the maintenance and recovery of stalled forks in both systems. Despite the lack of conservation between the factors involved, these mechanisms are strikingly similar in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. However, they differ in that fork restart occurs in the context of chromatin in eukaryotes and is controlled by multiple regulatory pathways.

Indexed as

DNA DamageModels, GeneticDNA RepairDNA ReplicationEukaryotic CellsRecombination, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID23637285
PMCPMC3632063

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.