Cited by 29DNA Repair MechanismsFungal and yeast genetics researchBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology

Different requirements for the association of ATR–ATRIP and 9-1-1 to the stalled replication forks

Kanoh, Yutaka, Tamai, Katsuyuki, Shirahige, Katsuhiko·2006·Gene

Abstract

DNA replication checkpoint, a surveillance mechanism for S-phase progression, plays a crucial role for the maintenance of genome integrity. A variety of factors have been characterized to be involved in the checkpoint signal transduction. Rpa, a single strand DNA binding protein, was found to be responsible for forming a structure that is recognized by checkpoint sensors and then emits the initial signal for the activation of DNA damage checkpoint. Here we use a mutant of rpa1 gene, rfa1-t11, that has defects in recruiting checkpoint sensor proteins to the site of double strand break, to examine the mutant's effects on the activation of DNA replication checkpoint. We found that the mutant cells activated DNA replication checkpoint normally and showed no defects in recruiting ATR-ATRIP, a major sensor complex that is essential for DNA replication/damage checkpoint, to the site of stalled forks. In contrast, the mutant was defective in recruiting 9-1-1 complex, another sensor complex that functions in DNA damage checkpoint signal transduction, to the stalled forks. Moreover we found that sensitivity for HU obviously appeared in rfa1-t11 mutant when Mrc1 was deleted, while deletion of Rad9, an adaptor specific for damage checkpoint, had subtle effect. These data strongly suggest that rfa1-t11 mutant was mainly defective for activating DNA damage checkpoint and molecular requirement for the recruitment of ATR-ATRIP and 9-1-1 to the stressed forks may be different.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.019

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kanoh, Y., Tamai, K., & Shirahige, K.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Institute of Technology (JP)
  • Medical & Biological Laboratories (Japan) (JP)
Corresponding author
Shirahige, Katsuhiko
Venue
Gene
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
377
Pages
88-95
ISSN
0378-1119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970772221
Cited by
29
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gene (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Keywords
DNA replication checkpoint, 9-1-1 complex, RPA1, stalled replication forks, DNA damage checkpoint, CD206, Rad9, genome stability, S phase progression
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Binding Sites, DNA Damage, DNA Replication, DNA-Binding Proteins, DNA, Fungal, Genes, Fungal, Mutation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Transcription Factors, Signal Transduction, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, Macromolecular Substances, Replication Protein A

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