Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24824069›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2014

Mechanisms and principles of homology search during recombination.

Jörg Renkawitz, Claudio A Lademann, Stefan Jentsch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing 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

109 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Role of Arp2/3 in End-Resection During DNA Double-Strand Break Repair.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. How cohesin guides DNA repair via scanning and tethering.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Why recombination hotspots?PLoS genetics · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

49 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

3 authors.

Jörg Renkawitz1] Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, 82152 Martinsried, Germany. [2] Institute of Science and Technology (IST) Austria, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria. [3].
Claudio A Lademann1] Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, 82152 Martinsried, Germany. [2].
Stefan JentschDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, 82152 Martinsried, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Homologous recombination is crucial for genome stability and for genetic exchange. Although our knowledge of the principle steps in recombination and its machinery is well advanced, homology search, the critical step of exploring the genome for homologous sequences to enable recombination, has remained mostly enigmatic. However, recent methodological advances have provided considerable new insights into this fundamental step in recombination that can be integrated into a mechanistic model. These advances emphasize the importance of genomic proximity and nuclear organization for homology search and the critical role of homology search mediators in this process. They also aid our understanding of how homology search might lead to unwanted and potentially disease-promoting recombination events.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairAnimalsChromosomesGenomic InstabilityHumansRecombination, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID24824069

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.