Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 930

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells

Open access
Ray Chaudhuri, Arnab, Callen, Elsa, Ding, Xia, Gogola, Ewa, Duarte, Alexandra A., Lee, Ji-Eun, Wong, Nancy, Lafarga, Vanessa, Calvo, Jennifer A., Panzarino, Nicholas J., John, Sam, Day, Amanda, Crespo, Anna Vidal, Shen, Binghui, Starnes, Linda M., Ruiter, Julian R. de, Daniel, Jeremy A., Konstantinopoulos, Panagiotis A., Cortez, David, Cantor, Sharon B., Fernandez-Capetillo, Oscar, Ge, Kai, Jonkers, Jos, Rottenberg, Sven, Sharan, Shyam K., Nussenzweig, André·2016·Nature

Abstract

Cells deficient in the Brca1 and Brca2 genes have reduced capacity to repair DNA double-strand breaks by homologous recombination and consequently are hypersensitive to DNA-damaging agents, including cisplatin and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Here we show that loss of the MLL3/4 complex protein, PTIP, protects Brca1/2-deficient cells from DNA damage and rescues the lethality of Brca2-deficient embryonic stem cells. However, PTIP deficiency does not restore homologous recombination activity at double-strand breaks. Instead, its absence inhibits the recruitment of the MRE11 nuclease to stalled replication forks, which in turn protects nascent DNA strands from extensive degradation. More generally, acquisition of PARP inhibitors and cisplatin resistance is associated with replication fork protection in Brca2-deficient tumour cells that do not develop Brca2 reversion mutations. Disruption of multiple proteins, including PARP1 and CHD4, leads to the same end point of replication fork protection, highlighting the complexities by which tumour cells evade chemotherapeutic interventions and acquire drug resistance.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature18325

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 930

Metadata

Authors
Ray Chaudhuri, A., Callen, E., Ding, X., Gogola, E., Duarte, A. A., Lee, J.-E., Wong, N., Lafarga, V., Calvo, J. A., Panzarino, N. J., John, S., Day, A., Crespo, A. V., Shen, B., Starnes, L. M., Ruiter, J. R. D., Daniel, J. A., Konstantinopoulos, P. A., Cortez, D., Cantor, S. B., Fernandez-Capetillo, O., Ge, K., Jonkers, J., Rottenberg, S., Sharan, S. K., & Nussenzweig, A.
Venue
Nature
Published
2016-07-20
Volume
535
Issue
7612
Pages
382-387
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2476568892
Cited by
930
References
44
FWCI
38.52
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: Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nature18325
The paper
Ray Chaudhuri, A., Callen, E., Ding, X., Gogola, E., Duarte, A. A., Lee, J.-E., Wong, N., Lafarga, V., Calvo, J. A., Panzarino, N. J., John, S., Day, A., Crespo, A. V., Shen, B., Starnes, L. M., Ruiter, J. R. D., Daniel, J. A., Konstantinopoulos, P. A., Cortez, D., . . . Nussenzweig, A. (2016). Replication fork stability confers chemoresistance in BRCA-deficient cells. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18325

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.