Cited by 181DNA Repair MechanismsFungal and yeast genetics researchDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry

Fidelity and Processivity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA Polymerase η

Open access
Washington, M. Todd, Johnson, Robert E., Prakash, Satya, Prakash, Louise·1999·Journal of Biological Chemistry

Abstract

The yeast RAD30 gene functions in error-free replication of UV-damaged DNA, and RAD30 encodes a DNA polymerase, pol eta, that has the ability to efficiently and correctly replicate past a cis-syn-thymine-thymine dimer in template DNA. To better understand the role of pol eta in damage bypass, we examined its fidelity and processivity on nondamaged DNA templates. Steady-state kinetic analyses of deoxynucleotide incorporation indicate that pol eta has a low fidelity, misincorporating deoxynucleotides with a frequency of about 10(-2) to 10(-3). Also pol eta has a low processivity, incorporating only a few nucleotides before dissociating. We suggest that pol eta's low fidelity reflects a flexibility in its active site rendering it more tolerant of DNA damage, while its low processivity limits its activity to reduce errors.

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 · 10.1074/jbc.274.52.36835

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • These multiplet mutations are likely the consequence of error-prone bypass polymerization during translesion synthesis and are consistent with processivity of bypass polymerases persisting for several nucleotides after the bypass-requiring blocking lesion.

    “These multiplet mutations are likely the consequence of error-prone bypass polymerization during translesion synthesis and are consistent with the processivity of bypass polymerases persisting for several nucleotides after the bypass-requiring blocking lesion (39 -41).”

    From Why Cockayne syndrome patients do not get cancer despite their DNA repair deficiency (2016) · cites this paper as [39]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [1]1. McDonald, J.P. ∙ Levine, A.S. ∙ Woodgate, R. Genetics. 1997; 147:1557-1568 Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
  2. [2]2. Roush, A.A. ∙ Suarez, M. ∙ Friedberg, E.C. ... Mol. Gen. Genet. 1998; 257:686-692 Crossref Scopus (127) PubMed Google Scholar
  3. [3]3. Johnson, R.E. ∙ Prakash, S. ∙ Prakash, L. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274:15975-15977 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (108) PubMed Google Scholar
  4. [4]4. Johnson, R.E. ∙ Prakash, S. ∙ Prakash, L. Science. 1999; 283:1001-1004 Crossref Scopus (707) PubMed Google Scholar
  5. [5]5. Johnson, R.E. ∙ Kondratick, C.M. ∙ Prakash, S. ... Science. 1999; 285:263-265 Crossref Scopus (680) PubMed Google Scholar
  6. [6]6. Masutani, C. ∙ Kusumoto, R. ∙ Yamada, A. ... Nature. 1999; 399:700-704 Crossref Scopus (1178) PubMed Google Scholar
  7. [7]7. Echols, H. ∙ Goodman, M.F. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 1991; 60:477-511 Crossref Scopus (659) PubMed Google Scholar
  8. [8]8. Kemmink, J. ∙ Boelens, R. ∙ Koning, T. ... Nucleic Acids Res. 1987; 15:4645-4653 Crossref Scopus (105) PubMed Google Scholar
  9. [9]9. Kim, J.-K. ∙ Patel, D. ∙ Choi, B.-S. Photochem. Photobiol. 1995; 62:44-50 Crossref Scopus (210) PubMed Google Scholar
  10. [10]10. Ciarrocchi, G. ∙ Pedrini, A.M. J. Mol. Biol. 1982; 155:177-183 Crossref Scopus (77) PubMed Google Scholar
  11. [11]11. Wang, C.-I. ∙ Taylor, J.-S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1991; 88:9072-9076 Crossref Scopus (98) PubMed Google Scholar
  12. [12]12. Goodman, M.F. ∙ Creighton, S. ∙ Bloom, L.B. ... Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1993; 28:83-126 Crossref Scopus (418) PubMed Google Scholar
  13. [13]13. Creighton, S. ∙ Bloom, L.B. ∙ Goodman, M.F. Methods Enzymol. 1995; 262:232-256 Crossref Scopus (229) PubMed Google Scholar
  14. [14]14. Bloom, L.B. ∙ Chen, X. ∙ Fygenson, D.K. ... J. Biol. Chem. 1997; 272:27919-27930 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (114) PubMed Google Scholar
  15. [15]15. von Hippel, P.H. ∙ Fairfield, F.R. ∙ Dolejsi, M.K. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1994; 726:118-131 Crossref Scopus (77) PubMed Google Scholar
  16. [16]16. Goodman, M.F. ∙ Fygenson, D.K. Genetics. 1998; 148:1475-1482 Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
  17. [18]18. Bambara, R.A. ∙ Fay, P.J. ∙ Mallaber, L.M. Methods Enzymol. 1995; 262:270-280 Crossref Scopus (47) PubMed Google Scholar
  18. [19]19. Steitz, T.A. J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274:17395-17398 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (730) PubMed Google Scholar
  19. [20]20. Creighton, S. ∙ Goodman, M.F. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270:4759-4774 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (64) PubMed Google Scholar
  20. [21]21. Thomas, D.C. ∙ Roberts, J.D. ∙ Sabatino, R.D. ... Biochemistry. 1991; 30:11751-11759 Crossref Scopus (105) PubMed Google Scholar
  21. [22]22. Osheroff, W.P. ∙ Jung, H.K. ∙ Beard, W.A. ... J. Biol. Chem. 1999; 274:3642-3650 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (139) PubMed Google Scholar
  22. [23]23. Wang, Y.-C. ∙ Maher, V.M. ∙ Mitchell, D.L. ... Mol. Cell. Biol. 1993; 13:4276-4283 Crossref Scopus (144) PubMed Google Scholar
  23. [24]24. Waters, H.L. ∙ Seetharam, S. ∙ Seidman, M.M. ... J. Investig. Dermatol. 1993; 101:744-748

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Washington, M. T., Johnson, R. E., Prakash, S., & Prakash, L.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
Corresponding author
Prakash, Louise
Venue
Journal of Biological Chemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-12
Volume
274
Issue
52
Pages
36835-36838
ISSN
0021-9258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107896468
Cited by
181
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biological Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01gm019261-30)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM-19261)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Keywords
DNA polymerase eta, UV-damaged DNA, translesion synthesis, polymerase fidelity, polymerase processivity, active site flexibility, Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MeSH terms
DNA Polymerase iota, Y-Family DNA Polymerases, DNA Damage, DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase, DNA Replication, Kinetics, Mutation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae

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