Cited by 316DNA Repair MechanismsCancer-related Molecular PathwaysDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry

ATR signalling: more than meeting at the fork

Open access
Nam, Edward A., Cortez, David·2011·Biochemical Journal

Abstract

Preservation of genome integrity via the DNA-damage response is critical to prevent disease. ATR (ataxia telangiectasia mutated- and Rad3-related) is essential for life and functions as a master regulator of the DNA-damage response, especially during DNA replication. ATR controls and co-ordinates DNA replication origin firing, replication fork stability, cell cycle checkpoints and DNA repair. Since its identification 15 years ago, a model of ATR activation and signalling has emerged that involves localization to sites of DNA damage and activation through protein–protein interactions. Recent research has added an increasingly detailed understanding of the canonical ATR pathway, and an appreciation that the canonical model does not fully capture the complexity of ATR regulation. In the present article, we review the ATR signalling process, focusing on mechanistic findings garnered from the identification of new ATR-interacting proteins and substrates. We discuss how to incorporate these new insights into a model of ATR regulation and point out the significant gaps in our understanding of this essential genome-maintenance pathway.

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 · 10.1042/bj20102162

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 130 · Cited by 316

Authors
Nam, E. A., & Cortez, D.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Biochemical Journal
Published
2011-05-27
Volume
436
Issue
3
Pages
527-536
ISSN
  • 0264-6021 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-8728
OpenAlex
W2155650828
Cited by
316
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 21
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biochemical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA102729, CA102729)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Keywords
DNA damage response, DNA replication, replication fork stability, cell cycle checkpoints, DNA repair, genome stability, protein-protein interaction
MeSH terms
MutL Protein Homolog 1, Animals, Ataxia Telangiectasia, Carrier Proteins, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, DNA Helicases, DNA-Binding Proteins, Humans, Nuclear Proteins, Protein Processing, Post-Translational, Signal Transduction, Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Cell Cycle Proteins, Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-ets, BH3 Interacting Domain Death Agonist Protein, MutS DNA Mismatch-Binding Protein, Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group Proteins, 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