ArticlePloS one2023
Highly mismatch-tolerant homology testing by RecA could explain how homology length affects recombination.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collective interactions along recombinase-bound D-loops could speed repair of double-strand breaks by destabilizing flanking homoduplex tails.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In E. coli, double strand breaks (DSBs) are resected and loaded with RecA protein. The genome is then rapidly searched for a sequence that is homologous to the DNA flanking the DSB. Mismatches in homologous partners are rare, suggesting that RecA should rapidly reject mismatched recombination products; however, this is not the case. Decades of work have shown that long lasting recombination products can include many mismatches. In this work, we show that in vitro RecA forms readily observable recombination products when 16% of the bases in the product are mismatched. We also consider various theoretical models of mismatch-tolerant homology testing. The models test homology by comparing the sequences of Ltest bases in two single-stranded DNAs (ssDNA) from the same genome. If the two sequences pass the homology test, the pairing between the two ssDNA becomes permanent. Stringency is the fraction of permanent pairings that join ssDNA from the same positions in the genome. We applied the models to both randomly generated genomes and bacterial genomes. For both randomly generated genomes and bacterial genomes, the models show that if no mismatches are accepted stringency is ∼ 99% when Ltest = 14 bp. For randomly generated genomes, stringency decreases with increasing mismatch tolerance, and stringency improves with increasing Ltest. In contrast, in bacterial genomes when Ltest ∼ 75 bp, stringency is ∼ 99% for both mismatch-intolerant and mismatch-tolerant homology testing. Furthermore, increasing Ltest does not improve stringency because most incorrect pairings join different copies of repeats. In sum, for bacterial genomes highly mismatch tolerant homology testing of 75 bp provides the same stringency as homology testing that rejects all mismatches and testing more than ∼75 base pairs is not useful. Interestingly, in vivo commitment to recombination typically requires homology testing of ∼ 75 bp, consistent with highly mismatch intolerant testing.
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.