Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30220600›Full record

ReviewDNA repair2018

Preserving replication fork integrity and competence via the homologous recombination pathway.

Anissia Ait Saada, Sarah A E Lambert, Antony M Carr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in DNA repair, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing 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

115 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

55 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.

Anissia Ait SaadaInstitut Curie, PSL Research University, CNRS, UMR3348, F-91405, Orsay, France; University Paris Sud, Paris-Saclay University, CNRS, UMR3348, F-91405, Orsay, France.
Sarah A E LambertInstitut Curie, PSL Research University, CNRS, UMR3348, F-91405, Orsay, France; University Paris Sud, Paris-Saclay University, CNRS, UMR3348, F-91405, Orsay, France.
Antony M CarrGenome Damage and Stability Centre, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Sussex, BN1 9RQ, UK. Electronic address: a.m.carr@sussex.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 110047/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flaws in the DNA replication process have emerged as a leading driver of genome instability in human diseases. Alteration to replication fork progression is a defining feature of replication stress and the consequent failure to maintain fork integrity and complete genome duplication within a single round of S-phase compromises genetic integrity. This includes increased mutation rates, small and large scale genomic rearrangement and deleterious consequences for the subsequent mitosis that result in the transmission of additional DNA damage to the daughter cells. Therefore, preserving fork integrity and replication competence is an important aspect of how cells respond to replication stress and avoid genetic change. Homologous recombination is a pivotal pathway in the maintenance of genome integrity in the face of replication stress. Here we review our recent understanding of the mechanisms by which homologous recombination acts to protect, restart and repair replication forks. We discuss the dynamics of these genetically distinct functions and their contribution to faithful mitoticsegregation.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA ReplicationRecombinational DNA RepairDNAEukaryotaHumansDNAFork integrityFork restartGenome instabilityRecombinationReplication stress

Identifiers

PMID30220600
PMCPMC6219450

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.