ArticleNature communications2026
In vitro reconstitution of chromatin replication recapitulates symmetric histone recycling.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. 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.
- In vitro reconstitution of chromatin replication recapitulates symmetric histone recycling.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Insights into the synchronization between DNA replication and parental histone recycling.Biochemical Society transactions · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Symmetric histone recycling is vital for maintaining epigenetic inheritance upon eukaryotic DNA replication. Recent genome-wide studies have uncovered key determinants of this process, but how these factors collectively support parental histone transfer remains incompletely understood. Here, we successfully reconstitute histone recycling with 24 purified proteins and analyze the products digested by Micrococcal nuclease with Repli-pore-seq, the newly developed pipeline combining nanopore sequencing and deep-learning-based classification. As a result, we identify histones symmetrically recycled as tetrasomes or hexasomes on nucleosome-favorable sequences. We also observe the discordance of the recycled position between lagging and leading strands on the GC-rich DNA sequences. Moreover, removal of Pol δ, Pol32, Dpb3/4, Ctf4, Csm3/Tof1, or Mrc1 disrupts the balance of histone recycling between the two daughter strands, whereas removal of Ctf4, Csm3/Tof1, or Mrc1 additionally alters the positions at which histones were recycled. Furthermore, addition of the lagging-strand maturation factors Fen1 and Cdc9 enhances histone recycling to the lagging strand. These findings provide critical insights into the molecular players and mechanisms underlying symmetric histone recycling.
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.