ArticleACS omega2019
Rep and UvrD Antagonize One Another at Stalled Replication Forks and This Is Exacerbated by SSB.
Article in ACS omega, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hallmarks of DNA replication stress responses in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Structural and functional investigation of GajB protein in Gabija anti-phage defense.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Insight into the biochemical mechanism of DNA helicases provided by bulk-phase and single-molecule assays.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2022Review
- Article
- High-yield purification of exceptional-quality, single-molecule DNA substrates.Journal of biological methods · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Rep and UvrD DNA helicases are proposed to act at stalled DNA replication forks to facilitate replication restart when RNA polymerase stalls forks. To clarify the role of these DNA helicases in fork rescue, we used a coupled spectrophotometric ATPase assay to determine how they act on model fork substrates. For both enzymes, activity is low on regressed fork structures, suggesting that they act prior to the regression step that generates a Holliday junction. In fact, the preferred cofactors for both enzymes are forks with a gap in the nascent leading strand, consistent with the 3'-5' direction of translocation. Surprisingly, for Rep, this specificity is altered in the presence of stoichiometric amounts of a single-strand DNA-binding protein (SSB) relative to a fork with a gap in the nascent lagging strand. Even though Rep and UvrD are similar in structure, elevated concentrations of SSB inhibit Rep, but they have little to no effect on UvrD. Furthermore, Rep and UvrD antagonize one another at a fork. This is surprising given that these helicases have been shown to form a heterodimer and are proposed to act together to rescue an RNA polymerase-stalled fork. Consequently, the results herein indicate that although Rep and UvrD can act on similar fork substrates, they cannot function on the same fork simultaneously.
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.