Cited by 223DNA Repair MechanismsBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry

Preventing replication fork collapse to maintain genome integrity

Open access
Cortez, David·2015·DNA Repair

Abstract

Billions of base pairs of DNA must be replicated trillions of times in a human lifetime. Complete and accurate replication once and only once per cell division cycle is essential to maintain genome integrity and prevent disease. Impediments to replication fork progression including difficult to replicate DNA sequences, conflicts with transcription, and DNA damage further add to the genome maintenance challenge. These obstacles frequently cause fork stalling, but only rarely cause a failure to complete replication. Robust mechanisms ensure that stalled forks remain stable and capable of either resuming DNA synthesis or being rescued by converging forks. However, when failures do happen the fork collapses leading to genome rearrangements, cell death and disease. Despite intense interest, the mechanisms to repair damaged replication forks, stabilize them, and ensure successful replication remain only partly understood. Different models of fork collapse have been proposed with varying descriptions of what happens to the DNA and replisome. Here, I will define fork collapse and describe what is known about how the replication checkpoint prevents it to maintain genome stability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.04.026

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 103 · Cited by 223

Authors
Cortez, D.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Cortez, David
Venue
DNA Repair
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
32
Pages
149-157
ISSN
  • 1568-7856 (ISSN-L)
  • 1568-7864
OpenAlex
W2078235984
Cited by
223
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • DNA repair (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIH (R01CA102729)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Keywords
replication fork collapse, genome stability, replication fork stalling, S-phase checkpoint, genome rearrangement, DNA damage, transcription-replication conflict, replisome, DNA replication
MeSH terms
Animals, DNA, DNA Damage, DNA Polymerase III, DNA Repair, DNA Replication, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Xenopus laevis, Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen, Genomic Instability, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review