The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Migrating bubble during break-induced replication drives conservative DNA synthesis
Open accessAbstract
The repair of chromosomal double strand breaks (DSBs) is crucial for the maintenance of genomic integrity. However, the repair of DSBs can also destabilize the genome by causing mutations and chromosomal rearrangements, the driving forces for carcinogenesis and hereditary diseases. Break-induced replication (BIR) is one of the DSB repair pathways that is highly prone to genetic instability. BIR proceeds by invasion of one broken end into a homologous DNA sequence followed by replication that can copy hundreds of kilobases of DNA from a donor molecule all the way through its telomere. The resulting repaired chromosome comes at a great cost to the cell, as BIR promotes mutagenesis, loss of heterozygosity, translocations, and copy number variations, all hallmarks of carcinogenesis. BIR uses most known replication proteins to copy large portions of DNA, similar to S-phase replication. It has therefore been suggested that BIR proceeds by semiconservative replication; however, the model of a bona fide, stable replication fork contradicts the known instabilities associated with BIR such as a 1,000-fold increase in mutation rate compared to normal replication. Here we demonstrate that in budding yeast the mechanism of replication during BIR is significantly different from S-phase replication, as it proceeds via an unusual bubble-like replication fork that results in conservative inheritance of the new genetic material. We provide evidence that this atypical mode of DNA replication, dependent on Pif1 helicase, is responsible for the marked increase in BIR-associated mutations. We propose that the BIR mode of synthesis presents a powerful mechanism that can initiate bursts of genetic instability in eukaryotes, including humans.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hastings, P. J., Ira, G., & Lupski, J. R. (2009) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000327 · Cited by 818
Self-citationPayen, C., Koszul, R., Dujon, B., & Fischer, G. (2008) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000175 · Cited by 200
Cited by
DNA double-strand break repair-pathway choice in somatic mammalian cells
Scully, R., Panday, A., Elango, R., & Willis, N. A. (2019) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-019-0152-0 · Cited by 1,457
Self-citationMechanisms underlying structural variant formation in genomic disorders
Carvalho, C. M. B., & Lupski, J. R. (2016) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2015.25 · Cited by 774
Glodzik, D., Morganella, S., Davies, H., Simpson, P. T., Li, Y., Zou, X., Diez-Perez, J., Staaf, J., Alexandrov, L. B., Smid, M., et al. (2017) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3771 · Cited by 84
Mutational signatures reveal the role of RAD52 in p53-independent p21-driven genomic instability
Galanos, P., Pappas, G., Polyzos, A., Kotsinas, A., Svolaki, I., Giakoumakis, N. N., Glytsou, C., Pateras, I. S., Swain, U., Souliotis, V. L., et al. (2018) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1401-9 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Saini, N., Ramakrishnan, S., Elango, R., Ayyar, S., Zhang, Y., Deem, A., Ira, G., Haber, J. E., Lobachev, K. S., & Malkova, A.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2013-09-11
- Volume
- 502
- Issue
- 7471
- Pages
- 389-392
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2077570881
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Migrating bubble during break-induced replication drives conservative DNA synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nature12584
- The paper
- Saini, N., Ramakrishnan, S., Elango, R., Ayyar, S., Zhang, Y., Deem, A., Ira, G., Haber, J. E., Lobachev, K. S., & Malkova, A. (2013). Migrating bubble during break-induced replication drives conservative DNA synthesis. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12584
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.