Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41370868›Full record

ReviewDNA repair2025

How DNA secondary structures drive replication fork instability.

Aditya Sethi, María Fernández-Casañas, Billie Delpino, Gideon Coster

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in DNA repair, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Aditya SethiGenome Replication Lab, Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, Institute of Cancer Research, Chester Beatty Laboratories, London SW3 6JB, UK.
María Fernández-CasañasGenome Replication Lab, Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, Institute of Cancer Research, Chester Beatty Laboratories, London SW3 6JB, UK.
Billie DelpinoGenome Replication Lab, Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, Institute of Cancer Research, Chester Beatty Laboratories, London SW3 6JB, UK.
Gideon CosterGenome Replication Lab, Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, Institute of Cancer Research, Chester Beatty Laboratories, London SW3 6JB, UK. Electronic address: Gideon.coster@icr.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA secondary structures, such as hairpins, cruciforms, triplexes, G-quadruplexes and iMotifs, are common, dynamic features that replication forks routinely encounter. However, how these structures destabilise the replication fork remains unclear. Here, we propose a framework describing the immediate consequences of replication forks encountering DNA secondary structures. This review considers outcomes according to the affected strand (leading or lagging) and the timing of structure formation, linking strand geometry and folding dynamics to replisome behaviour. Stable, pre-formed structures on the leading strand template either impede, or are bypassed by, the CMG (CDC45-MCM-GINS) helicase, frequently leaving single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) gaps. Leading strand structures inhibit DNA polymerase ε (Pol ε), induce fork uncoupling, again producing post-replicative ssDNA gaps which can channel into fork reversal or PrimPol-dependent repriming. Lagging strand template structures inhibit DNA polymerase δ (Pol δ) and structures on 5' flaps impair Okazaki fragment maturation (OFM); both impediments yield ssDNA nicks or gaps. In each case, replication protein A (RPA) availability and the replication checkpoint define a tolerance window and coordinate hand-offs to accessory helicases, Pol δ strand displacement synthesis, and translesion synthesis (TLS). Immediate double-strand breaks (DSBs) are unlikely as an immediate consequence. Instead, we propose strand-specific ssDNA gaps predominate and may later be converted into DSBs during late S/G2 processing, mitosis, or the next S phase. This review integrates mechanisms to connect structure dynamics with fork responses and downstream ssDNA gaps and breaks, providing possible models of structure-induced genome instability.

Indexed as

DNADNA ReplicationNucleic Acid ConformationAnimalsDNA, Single-StrandedHumansDNADNA, Single-StrandedDNA accessory helicasesDNA replicationDNA secondary structuresDouble-strand breaks (DSBs)Genome instabilityReplication fork stallingReplication stressSingle-stranded gaps (ssDNA gaps)

Identifiers

PMID41370868
PMCPMC12708500

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.