ArticlePLoS genetics2014
DNA repair pathway selection caused by defects in TEL1, SAE2, and de novo telomere addition generates specific chromosomal rearrangement signatures.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double-strand breaks induce inverted duplication chromosome rearrangements by a DNA polymerase δ-dependent mechanism.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Origin, Regulation, and Fitness Effect of Chromosomal Rearrangements in the YeastInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Mechanisms underlying genome instability mediated by formation of foldback inversions ineLife · 2020Article
- Expandable and reversible copy number amplification drives rapid adaptation to antifungal drugs.eLife · 2020Article
- Review
- EssentialProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Review
- SUMO E3 ligase Mms21 prevents spontaneous DNA damage induced genome rearrangements.PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- Cdc73 suppresses genome instability by mediating telomere homeostasis.PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- Analyzing Genome Rearrangements in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2018Article
- Pathways and Mechanisms that Prevent Genome Instability inGenetics · 2017Review
- Molecular Circuitry of the SUMO (Small Ubiquitin-like Modifier) Pathway in Controlling Sumoylation Homeostasis and Suppressing Genome Rearrangements.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2016Article
- A genetic network that suppresses genome rearrangements in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and contains defects in cancers.Nature communications · 2016Article
- Mre11-Sae2 and RPA Collaborate to Prevent Palindromic Gene Amplification.Molecular cell · 2015Article
- Phosphorylation of Sae2 Mediates Forkhead-associated (FHA) Domain-specific Interaction and Regulates Its DNA Repair Function.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2015Article
- Topoisomerase I plays a critical role in suppressing genome instability at a highly transcribed G-quadruplex-forming sequence.PLoS genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing of cancer genomes has revealed a diversity of recurrent gross chromosomal rearrangements (GCRs) that are likely signatures of specific defects in DNA damage response pathways. However, inferring the underlying defects has been difficult due to insufficient information relating defects in DNA metabolism to GCR signatures. By analyzing over 95 mutant strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, we found that the frequency of GCRs that deleted an internal CAN1/URA3 cassette on chrV L while retaining a chrV L telomeric hph marker was significantly higher in tel1Δ, sae2Δ, rad53Δ sml1Δ, and mrc1Δ tof1Δ mutants. The hph-retaining GCRs isolated from tel1Δ mutants contained either an interstitial deletion dependent on non-homologous end-joining or an inverted duplication that appeared to be initiated from a double strand break (DSB) on chrV L followed by hairpin formation, copying of chrV L from the DSB toward the centromere, and homologous recombination to capture the hph-containing end of chrV L. In contrast, hph-containing GCRs from other mutants were primarily interstitial deletions (mrc1Δ tof1Δ) or inverted duplications (sae2Δ and rad53Δ sml1Δ). Mutants with impaired de novo telomere addition had increased frequencies of hph-containing GCRs, whereas mutants with increased de novo telomere addition had decreased frequencies of hph-containing GCRs. Both types of hph-retaining GCRs occurred in wild-type strains, suggesting that the increased frequencies of hph retention were due to the relative efficiencies of competing DNA repair pathways. Interestingly, the inverted duplications observed here resemble common GCRs in metastatic pancreatic cancer.
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.