Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Distinct DNA-damage-dependent and -independent responses drive the loss of oocytes in recombination-defective mouse mutants

Open access
Di Giacomo, Monica, Barchi, Marco, Baudat, Frédéric, Edelmann, Winfried, Keeney, Scott, Jasin, Maria·2005·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Defects in meiotic recombination in many organisms result in arrest because of activation of a meiotic checkpoint(s). The proximal defect that triggers this checkpoint in mammalian germ cells is not understood, but it has been suggested to involve either the presence of DNA damage in the form of unrepaired recombination intermediates or defects in homologous chromosome pairing and synapsis independent of DNA damage per se . To distinguish between these possibilities in the female germ line, we compared mouse oocyte development in a mutant that fails to form the double-strand breaks (DSBs) that initiate meiotic recombination ( Spo11 -/- ) to mutants with defects in processing DSBs when they are formed ( Dmc1 -/- and Msh5 -/- ), and we examined the epistasis relationships between these mutations. Absence of DSB formation caused a partial defect in follicle formation, whereas defects in DSB repair caused earlier and more severe meiotic arrest, which could be suppressed by eliminating DSB formation. Therefore, our analysis reveals that there are both DNA-damage-dependent and -independent responses to recombination errors in mammalian oocytes. By using these findings as a paradigm, we also examined oocyte loss in mutants lacking the DNA-damage checkpoint kinase ATM. The absence of ATM caused defects in folliculogenesis that were similar to those in Dmc1 mutants and that could be suppressed by Spo11 mutation, implying that oocyte death in Atm -deficient animals is a response to defective DSB repair.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0406212102

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Di Giacomo, M., Barchi, M., Baudat, F., Edelmann, W., Keeney, S., & Jasin, M.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2005-01-07
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
737-742
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2059204632
Cited by
244
References
1
FWCI
5.19
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: Distinct DNA-damage-dependent and -independent responses drive the loss of oocytes in recombination-defective mouse mutants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0406212102
The paper
Di Giacomo, M., Barchi, M., Baudat, F., Edelmann, W., Keeney, S., & Jasin, M. (2005). Distinct DNA-damage-dependent and -independent responses drive the loss of oocytes in recombination-defective mouse mutants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406212102

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.