ReviewDNA repair2025
How DNA secondary structures drive replication fork instability.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- G-quadruplex structures as regulators of cellular processes and drivers of genome instability in cancer.Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology · 2026Review
- Inhibition of lagging strand replication by G-rich telomeric DNA and the shelterin subunit POT1.The EMBO journal · 2026Article
- Benzofuran-Annulated Naphthalimides Trigger Replication Stress, DNA Damage, and p53-Dependent Cell Cycle Arrest.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- 1950-2000: five decades of curiosity-driven discovery in alternative DNA structures.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
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.