Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26347803›Full record

ArticleMobile DNA2015

Precise repair of mPing excision sites is facilitated by target site duplication derived microhomology.

David M Gilbert, M Catherine Bridges, Ashley E Strother, Courtney E Burckhalter, James M Burnette, C Nathan Hancock

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mobile DNA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Development ofPlant direct · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. DNA Transposition at Work.Chemical reviews · 2016
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David M GilbertDepartment of Biology and Geology, University of South Carolina Aiken, 471 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 USA.
M Catherine BridgesPresent Address: Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425 USA.
Ashley E StrotherDepartment of Biology and Geology, University of South Carolina Aiken, 471 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 USA.
Courtney E BurckhalterDepartment of Biology and Geology, University of South Carolina Aiken, 471 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 USA.
James M BurnettePresent Address: College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521 USA.
C Nathan HancockDepartment of Biology and Geology, University of South Carolina Aiken, 471 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801 USA.
University of South Carolina Aiken · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of California, Riverside · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA key difference between the Tourist and Stowaway families of miniature inverted repeat transposable elements (MITEs) is the manner in which their excision alters the genome. Upon excision, Stowaway-like MITEs and the associated Mariner elements usually leave behind a small duplication and short sequences from the end of the element. These small insertions or deletions known as "footprints" can potentially disrupt coding or regulatory sequences. In contrast, Tourist-like MITEs and the associated PIF/Pong/Harbinger elements generally excise precisely, returning the genome to its original state. The purpose of this study was to determine the mechanisms underlying these excision differences, including the role of the host DNA repair mechanisms.

resultsThe transposition of the Tourist-like element, mPing, and the Stowaway-like element, 14T32, were evaluated using yeast transposition assays. Assays performed in yeast strains lacking non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) enzymes indicated that the excision sites of both elements were primarily repaired by NHEJ. Altering the target site duplication (TSD) sequences that flank these elements reduced the transposition frequency. Using yeast strains with the ability to repair the excision site by homologous repair showed that some TSD changes disrupt excision of the element. Changing the ends of mPing to produce non-matching TSDs drastically reduced repair of the excision site and resulted in increased generation of footprints.

conclusionsTogether these results indicate that the difference in Tourist and Stowaway excision sites results from transposition mechanism characteristics. The TSDs of both elements play a role in element excision, but only the mPing TSDs actively participate in excision site repair. Our data suggests that Tourist-like elements excise with staggered cleavage of the TSDs, which provides microhomology that facilitates precise repair. This slight modification in the transposition mechanism results in more efficient repair of the double stranded break, and thus, may be less harmful to host genomes by disrupting fewer genes.

Indexed as

Excision site repairmPingTarget site duplication

Identifiers

PMID26347803
PMCPMC4561436
OpenAlexW2139406800

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.