Cited by 87DNA Repair MechanismsNuclear Structure and FunctionEffects of Radiation Exposure

Opposing effects of the UV lesion repair protein XPA and UV bypass polymerase η on ATR checkpoint signaling

Open access
Bomgarden, Ryan D, Lupardus, Patrick J, Soni, Deena V, Yee, Muh‐Ching, Ford, James M, Cimprich, Karlene A·2006·The EMBO Journal

Abstract

An essential component of the ATR (ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related)-activating structure is single-stranded DNA. It has been suggested that nucleotide excision repair (NER) can lead to activation of ATR by generating such a signal, and in yeast, DNA damage processing through the NER pathway is necessary for checkpoint activation during G1. We show here that ultraviolet (UV) radiation-induced ATR signaling is compromised in XPA-deficient human cells during S phase, as shown by defects in ATRIP (ATR-interacting protein) translocation to sites of UV damage, UV-induced phosphorylation of Chk1 and UV-induced replication protein A phosphorylation and chromatin binding. However, ATR signaling was not compromised in XPC-, CSB-, XPF- and XPG-deficient cells. These results indicate that damage processing is not necessary for ATR-mediated S-phase checkpoint activation and that the lesion recognition function of XPA may be sufficient. In contrast, XP-V cells deficient in the UV bypass polymerase eta exhibited enhanced ATR signaling. Taken together, these results suggest that lesion bypass and not lesion repair may raise the level of UV damage that can be tolerated before checkpoint activation, and that XPA plays a critical role in this activation.

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/sj.emboj.7601123

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • ATRIP localization and Chk1 phosphorylation is not affected in XP-C, XP-F, and XP-G cells, but is affected in XP-A cells.

    “However, Bomgarden et. al. showed that even though ATRIP localization and Chk1 phosphorylation is not affected in XP-C, XP-F, and XP-G cells, it is affected in XP-A cells [65].”
  • Outside S phase and in non-cycling cells, UV lesions alone cannot activate the checkpoint; NER plays a major role in triggering the checkpoint response, though contrasting results exist.

    “Outside of S phase and in non cycling cells the situation is quite different. Recent analysis showed that UV lesions themselves cannot activate the checkpoint and NER plays a major role in triggering the checkpoint response, although contrasting results have also been reported [52–57].”

    From Mind the gap: keeping UV lesions in check (2011) · cites this paper as [53]

  • ATR is critical for UV DNA damage signaling and is linked with NER.

    “ATR (ATM and Rad3-related) is critical to UV DNA damage signaling (Ciccia and Elledge, 2010) and is intimately linked with NER”
  • XPA is part of the core NER incision complex and interacts with DNA and other NER and damage-response proteins.

    “Xeroderma pigmentosum complement group A (XPA), a gene frequently mutated in XP patients, is part of the core incision complex of NER and interacts with DNA as well as many other NER and damage response proteins”

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
Bomgarden, R. D., Lupardus, P. J., Soni, D. V., Yee, M., Ford, J. M., & Cimprich, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Cimprich, Karlene A
Venue
The EMBO Journal
Published
2006-05-04
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
2605-2614
ISSN
  • 0261-4189 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2075
OpenAlex
W2062564859
Cited by
87
References
67
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2006-10-18)
Open access
Locations
  • The EMBO Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM62193, R01GM062193)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nuclear Structure and Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
Keywords
XPA, XPG, XPC, XPD
MeSH terms
Checkpoint Kinase 1, Poly-ADP-Ribose Binding Proteins, Y-Family DNA Polymerases, Animals, Cell Cycle, Cell Line, DNA, DNA Damage, DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase, DNA Repair, DNA Helicases, DNA-Binding Proteins, Exodeoxyribonucleases, Humans, Oocytes, Phosphoproteins, Protein Kinases, Ultraviolet Rays, Xenopus laevis, Signal Transduction, Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases, Cell Cycle Proteins, Xenopus Proteins, DNA Repair Enzymes, Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing, Mice, Xeroderma Pigmentosum Group A Protein, Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Proteins

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