ReviewDNA repair2022
Extrinsic proofreading.
Review in DNA repair, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response of the replisome to araA and araC suggests a mechanism for arabinosyl nucleoside tolerance.The EMBO journal · 2026Article
- A dominant mutation in tomato DNA POLYMERASE DELTA 1 causes geminivirus DNA replication catastrophe.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- A human high-fidelity DNA polymerase holoenzyme has a wide range of lesion bypass activities.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Review
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
The high fidelity of replication of the nuclear DNA genome in eukaryotes involves three processes. Correct rather than incorrect dNTPs are almost always incorporated by the three major replicases, DNA polymerases α, δ and ε. When an incorrect base is occasionally inserted, the latter Pols δ and ε also have a 3 ´ to 5 ´ exonuclease activity that can remove the mismatch to allow correct DNA synthesis to proceed. Lastly, rare mismatches that escape proofreading activity and are present in newly replicated DNA can be removed by DNA mismatch repair. In this review, we consider evidence supporting the hypothesis that the second mechanism, proofreading, can operate in two different ways. Primer terminal mismatches made by either Pol δ or Pol ε can be 'intrinsically' proofread. This mechanism occurs by direct transfer of a misinserted base made at the polymerase active site to the exonuclease active site that is located a short distance away. Intrinsic proofreading allows mismatch excision without intervening enzyme dissociation. Alternatively, considerable evidence suggests that mismatches made by any of the three replicases can also be proofread by 'extrinsic' proofreading by Pol δ. Extrinsic proofreading occurs when a mismatch made by any of the three replicases is initially abandoned, thereby allowing the exonuclease active site of Pol δ to bind directly to and remove the mismatch before replication continues. Here we review the evidence that extrinsic proofreading significantly enhances the fidelity of nuclear DNA replication, and we then briefly consider the implications of this process for evolution and disease.
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.