Cited by 259DNA Repair MechanismsUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics

Ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass is separable from genome replication

Open access
Daigaku, Yasukazu, Davies, Adelina A., Ulrich, Helle D.·2010·Nature

Abstract

Post-replication repair (PRR) is a pathway that allows cells to bypass or overcome lesions during DNA replication. In eukaryotes, damage bypass is activated by ubiquitylation of the replication clamp PCNA through components of the RAD6 pathway. Whereas monoubiquitylation of PCNA allows mutagenic translesion synthesis by damage-tolerant DNA polymerases, polyubiquitylation is required for an error-free pathway that probably involves a template switch to the undamaged sister chromatid. Both the timing of PRR events during the cell cycle and their location relative to replication forks, as well as the factors required downstream of PCNA ubiquitylation, have remained poorly characterized. Here we demonstrate that the RAD6 pathway normally operates during S phase. However, using an inducible system of DNA damage bypass in budding yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), we show that the process is separable in time and space from genome replication, thus allowing direct visualization and quantification of productive PRR tracts. We found that both during and after S phase ultraviolet-radiation-induced lesions are bypassed predominantly via translesion synthesis, whereas the error-free pathway functions as a backup system. Our approach has revealed the distribution of PRR tracts in a synchronized cell population. It will allow an in-depth mechanistic analysis of how cells manage the processing of lesions to their genomes during and after replication.

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 · 10.1038/nature09097

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

  • In these conditions, repair may not be completed and ssDNA extension may both activate the checkpoint and channel the problematic lesion to another repair pathway such as recombination.

    “In these conditions, repair may not be completed and the extension of the ssDNA region may meet two purposes: activating the checkpoint response and channeling the problematic lesion to a different repair pathway (e.g., recombination) [66–68].”

    From Mind the gap: keeping UV lesions in check (2011) · cites this paper as [67]

  • S phase can be completed without PRR, but gapped replicated DNA must be refilled by PRR in G2 for cell survival.

    “In fact, S phase can be completed in the absence of PRR, but the gapped replicated DNA needs to be refilled by PRR in G2 in order to warrant cell survival [66,67].”

    From Mind the gap: keeping UV lesions in check (2011) · cites this paper as [67]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daigaku, Y., Davies, A. A., & Ulrich, H. D.
Affiliations
Cancer Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Ulrich, Helle D.
Venue
Nature
Published
2010-05-09
Volume
465
Issue
7300
Pages
951-955
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2080574942
Cited by
259
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 27
FWCI
11.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (A7123, A10152)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ubiquitin and proteasome pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Keywords
DNA damage bypass, translesion synthesis, error-free bypass, genome replication, S phase, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, replication fork, DNA polymerase, monoubiquitylation, polyubiquitination, template switching, sister chromatids, cell cycle synchronization
MeSH terms
Cell Cycle, Chromatin, DNA Damage, DNA Replication, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Time Factors, Ultraviolet Rays, Genome, Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen, Ubiquitin, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, Ubiquitin-Conjugating Enzymes

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