ReviewFEMS yeast research2017
Replication fork regression and its regulation.
Review in FEMS yeast research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ligase-dependent and independent functions of the C-terminus of Mms21 contribute to optimal growth and genome stability inMolecular biology of the cell · 2026Article
- Condensin and topoisomerases cooperate to relieve topological stress at stalled replication forks.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The Yeast HMGB Protein Hmo1 Is a Multifaceted Regulator of DNA Damage Tolerance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Multifaceted roles of SUMO in DNA metabolism.Nucleus (Austin, Tex.) · 2024Review
- Post-Translational Modifications of PCNA: Guiding for the Best DNA Damage Tolerance Choice.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Metnase and EEPD1: DNA Repair Functions and Potential Targets in Cancer Therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Repriming DNA synthesis: an intrinsic restart pathway that maintains efficient genome replication.Nucleic acids research · 2021Review
- Making Choices: DNA Replication Fork Recovery Mechanisms.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2021Review
- Structural basis for the multi-activity factor Rad5 in replication stress tolerance.Nature communications · 2021Article
- The Safe Path at the Fork: Ensuring Replication-Associated DNA Double-Strand Breaks are Repaired by Homologous Recombination.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Using a Human Papillomavirus Model to Study DNA Replication and Repair of Wild Type and Damaged DNA Templates in Mammalian Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Homologous recombination and Mus81 promote replication completion in response to replication fork blockage.EMBO reports · 2020Article
- Chromatin Architectural Factors as Safeguards against Excessive Supercoiling during DNA Replication.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Intertwined: SAMHD1 cellular functions, restriction, and viral evasion strategies.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2019Review
- Article
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
One major challenge during genome duplication is the stalling of DNA replication forks by various forms of template blockages. As these barriers can lead to incomplete replication, multiple mechanisms have to act concertedly to correct and rescue stalled replication forks. Among these mechanisms, replication fork regression entails simultaneous annealing of nascent and template strands, which leads to regression of replication forks and formation of four-way DNA junctions. In principle, this process can lead to either positive outcomes, such as DNA repair and replication resumption, or less desirable outcomes, such as misalignment between nascent and template DNA and DNA cleavage. While our understanding of replication fork regression and its various possible outcomes is still at an early stage, recent studies using combinational approaches in multiple organisms have begun to identify the enzymes that catalyze this DNA transaction and how these enzymes are regulated, as well as the specific manners by which fork regression can influence replication. This review summarizes these recent progresses. In keeping with the theme of this series of reviews, we focus on studies in yeast and compare to findings in higher eukaryotes. It is anticipated that these findings will form the basis for future endeavors to further elucidate replication fork remodeling and its implications for genome maintenance.
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.