ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
DNA damage response and cell cycle regulation in bacteria: a twist around the paradigm.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Bacterial mutation dynamics emerging insights into virulence evolution and drug resistance. A review study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating the scientific and regulatory case for the deployment of the radioresistant genusFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Beyond Resistance: Tolerance and Resilience of Bacteria to Photodynamic and Oxidative Stress.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Evolutionary Trajectories of Consciousness: From Biological Foundations to Technological Horizons.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Review
- Surviving the storm: exploring the role of natural transformation in nutrition and DNA repair of stressedApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Application of the transposon-associated TnpB system of CRISPR-Cas in bacteria:Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The co-protease activity in the RecA-ssDNA complex cleaves the autorepressor LexA, resulting in the derepression of a large number of genes under LexA control. This process is called the SOS response, and genes that are expressed in response to DNA damage are called SOS genes. The proteins encoded by the SOS genes are involved in both DNA repair and maintaining the functions of crucial cell division proteins (e.g., FtsZ) under check until the damaged DNA is presumably repaired. This mechanism of SOS response is the only known mechanism of DNA damage response and cell cycle regulation in bacteria. However, there are bacteria that do not obey this rule of DNA damage response and cell cycle regulation, yet they respond to DNA damage, repair it, and survive. That means such bacteria would have some alternate mechanism(s) of DNA damage response and cell cycle regulation beyond the canonical pathway of the SOS response. In this study, we present the perspectives that bacteria may have other mechanisms of DNA damage response and cell cycle regulation mediated by bacterial eukaryotic type Ser/Thr protein kinases as an alternate to the canonical SOS response and herewith elaborate on them with a well-studied example in the radioresistant bacterium
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.