Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28098815›Full record

ReviewGenes2017

Replication Fork Protection Factors Controlling R-Loop Bypass and Suppression.

Emily Yun-Chia Chang, Peter C Stirling

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. R-Loop-Associated Genomic Instability and Implication of WRN and WRNIP1.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Review
  8. R-Loops and Its Chro-Mates: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. RNA: a double-edged sword in genome maintenance.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Sensing R-Loop-Associated DNA Damage to Safeguard Genome Stability.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Emily Yun-Chia ChangTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, 675 West 10th Ave., Vancouver, BC V5Z1L3, Canada. echang@bccrc.ca.
Peter C StirlingTerry Fox Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency, 675 West 10th Ave., Vancouver, BC V5Z1L3, Canada. pstirling@bccrc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Replication-transcription conflicts have been a well-studied source of genome instability for many years and have frequently been linked to defects in RNA processing. However, recent characterization of replication fork-associated proteins has revealed that defects in fork protection can directly or indirectly stabilize R-loop structures in the genome and promote transcription-replication conflicts that lead to genome instability. Defects in essential DNA replication-associated activities like topoisomerase, or the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) helicase complex, as well as fork-associated protection factors like the Fanconi anemia pathway, both appear to mitigate transcription-replication conflicts. Here, we will highlight recent advances that support the concept that normal and robust replisome function itself is a key component of mitigating R-loop coupled genome instability.

Indexed as

DNA repairDNA replication stressR-looptranscription–replication conflict

Identifiers

PMID28098815
PMCPMC5295027

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.