ReviewBiochemical Society transactions2013
Checkpoint regulation of replication forks: global or local?
Review in Biochemical Society transactions, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Critical role of SMG7 in activation of the ATR-CHK1 axis in response to genotoxic stress.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The more the merrier: how homo-oligomerization alters the interactome and function of ribonucleotide reductase.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2020Review
- Mrc1 and Rad9 cooperate to regulate initiation and elongation of DNA replication in response to DNA damage.The EMBO journal · 2018Article
- Article
- Replication fork slowing and stalling are distinct, checkpoint-independent consequences of replicating damaged DNA.PLoS genetics · 2017Article
- Role of Protein Phosphorylation in the Regulation of Cell Cycle and DNA-Related Processes in Bacteria.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Review
- Article
- Behavior of replication origins in Eukaryota - spatio-temporal dynamics of licensing and firing.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cell-cycle checkpoints are generally global in nature: one unattached kinetochore prevents the segregation of all chromosomes; stalled replication forks inhibit late origin firing throughout the genome. A potential exception to this rule is the regulation of replication fork progression by the S-phase DNA damage checkpoint. In this case, it is possible that the checkpoint is global, and it slows all replication forks in the genome. However, it is also possible that the checkpoint acts locally at sites of DNA damage, and only slows those forks that encounter DNA damage. Whether the checkpoint regulates forks globally or locally has important mechanistic implications for how replication forks deal with damaged DNA during S-phase.
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.