Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30322449›Full record

ArticleeLife2018

Loss of p53 suppresses replication-stress-induced DNA breakage in G1/S checkpoint deficient cells.

Bente Benedict, Tanja van Harn, Marleen Dekker, Simone Hermsen, Asli Kucukosmanoglu, Wietske Pieters, Elly Delzenne-Goette, Josephine C Dorsman, Eva Petermann, Floris Foijer and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. CHAMP1 complex promotes heterochromatin assembly and reduces replication stress.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Bente Benedict *Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7503-8527
Tanja van Harn *Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marleen DekkerDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Simone HermsenDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Asli KucukosmanogluDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wietske PietersDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elly Delzenne-GoetteDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Josephine C DorsmanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva PetermannSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Floris FoijerDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0989-3127
Hein Te RieleDivision of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0255-4042
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

European Molecular Biology Organization 194-2011KWF Kankerbestrijding 2007-3790KWF Kankerbestrijding 2014-6702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In cancer cells, loss of G1/S control is often accompanied by p53 pathway inactivation, the latter usually rationalized as a necessity for suppressing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. However, we found an unanticipated effect of p53 loss in mouse and human G1-checkpoint-deficient cells: reduction of DNA damage. We show that abrogation of the G1/S-checkpoint allowed cells to enter S-phase under growth-restricting conditions at the expense of severe replication stress manifesting as decelerated DNA replication, reduced origin firing and accumulation of DNA double-strand breaks. In this system, loss of p53 allowed mitogen-independent proliferation, not by suppressing apoptosis, but rather by restoring origin firing and reducing DNA breakage. Loss of G1/S control also caused DNA damage and activation of p53 in an

Indexed as

AnimalsApoptosisCell Cycle CheckpointsCell Line, TumorCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p21DNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA DamageDNA RepairDNA ReplicationHumansMiceNeoplasmsS PhaseTeratomaTumor Suppressor Protein p53Cdkn1a protein, mouseCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p21Tumor Suppressor Protein p53cancer biologyDNA double strand breaksG1/S phase checkpointhumanmouseorigin firingp53replication stressretinoblastoma

Identifiers

PMID30322449
PMCPMC6221544
OpenAlexW2897743684

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.