ArticleNucleic acids research2025
S-phase checkpoint protects from aberrant replication fork processing and degradation.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Zinc Finger Ran-Binding Protein 3 (ZRANB3): An Advanced Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- How DNA secondary structures drive replication fork instability.DNA repair · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Replication stress, a hallmark of cancer cells, is detected by checkpoint mechanisms that trigger a range of cellular responses. Among these, the preservation of replication fork integrity is crucial for ensuring survival in the presence of DNA damage. In budding yeast checkpoint mutants, DNA damage leads to irreversible replication fork arrest and subsequent cell death, though the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Our study reveals that several DNA processing factors, including Rad51, the Rad5 HIRAN and helicase domains, and the catalytic activity of Mus81, contribute to this lethality. Nevertheless, their roles are masked by their essential functions in cell survival after damage removal. Additionally, we show that these factors, along with Exo1, drive the gradual degradation of nascent DNA at replication forks upon DNA damage. Notably, this degradation can be mitigated by expression of human PrimPol, which is absent in yeast. These findings suggest that the essential role of S-phase checkpoints upon DNA damage is to safeguard stalled replication forks from aberrant processing, thereby preserving nascent DNA integrity.
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.