Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36574412›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2022

Beneficial and detrimental genes in the cellular response to replication arrest.

Luciane Schons-Fonseca, Milena D Lazova, Janet L Smith, Mary E Anderson, Alan D Grossman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luciane Schons-FonsecaDepartment of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9221-293X
Milena D LazovaDepartment of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Janet L SmithDepartment of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Mary E AndersonDepartment of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Alan D GrossmanDepartment of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8235-7227
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Cell Cycle and Sporulation in Bacillis SubtillisR37GM041934 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI GROSSMAN, ALAN D · 2009 to 2017
$4.8M
Mechanisms and regulation of replication, the cell cycle, gene expression, and horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes, focusing on Bacillus subtilisR35GM122538 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI GROSSMAN, ALAN D · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM122538NIGMS NIH HHS R37 GM041934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA replication is essential for all living organisms. Several events can disrupt replication, including DNA damage (e.g., pyrimidine dimers, crosslinking) and so-called "roadblocks" (e.g., DNA-binding proteins or transcription). Bacteria have several well-characterized mechanisms for repairing damaged DNA and then restoring functional replication forks. However, little is known about the repair of stalled or arrested replication forks in the absence of chemical alterations to DNA. Using a library of random transposon insertions in Bacillus subtilis, we identified 35 genes that affect the ability of cells to survive exposure to an inhibitor that arrests replication elongation, but does not cause chemical alteration of the DNA. Genes identified include those involved in iron-sulfur homeostasis, cell envelope biogenesis, and DNA repair and recombination. In B. subtilis, and many bacteria, two nucleases (AddAB and RecJ) are involved in early steps in repairing replication forks arrested by chemical damage to DNA and loss of either nuclease causes increased sensitivity to DNA damaging agents. These nucleases resect DNA ends, leading to assembly of the recombinase RecA onto the single-stranded DNA. Notably, we found that disruption of recJ increased survival of cells following replication arrest, indicating that in the absence of chemical damage to DNA, RecJ is detrimental to survival. In contrast, and as expected, disruption of addA decreased survival of cells following replication arrest, indicating that AddA promotes survival. The different phenotypes of addA and recJ mutants appeared to be due to differences in assembly of RecA onto DNA. RecJ appeared to promote too much assembly of RecA filaments. Our results indicate that in the absence of chemical damage to DNA, RecA is dispensable for cells to survive replication arrest and that the stable RecA nucleofilaments favored by the RecJ pathway may lead to cell death by preventing proper processing of the arrested replication fork.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairBacterial ProteinsDNADNA-Binding ProteinsDNA ReplicationRec A RecombinasesBacterial ProteinsDNADNA-Binding ProteinsRec A Recombinases

Identifiers

PMID36574412
PMCPMC9836290
OpenAlexW4312207607

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.