Cited by 147DNA Repair MechanismsFungal and yeast genetics researchBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology

RAD9 and RAD24 define two additive, interacting branches of the DNA damage checkpoint pathway in budding yeast normally required for Rad53 modification and activation

Open access
de la Torre‐Ruiz, Maria‐Angeles, Green, Catherine M., Lowndes, Noel F.·1998·The EMBO Journal

Abstract

In budding yeast, RAD9 and RAD24/RAD17/MEC3 are believed to function upstream of MEC1 and RAD53 in signalling the presence of DNA damage. Deletion of any one of these genes reduces the normal G1/S and G2/M checkpoint delays after UV irradiation, whereas in rad9Delta-rad24Delta cells the G1/S checkpoint is undetectable, although there is a residual G2/M checkpoint. We have shown previously that RAD9 also controls the transcriptional induction of a DNA damage regulon (DDR). We now report that efficient DDR induction requires all the above-mentioned checkpoint genes. Residual induction of the DDR after UV irradiation observed in all single mutants is not detectable in rad9Delta-rad24Delta. We have examined the G2/M checkpoint and UV sensitivity of single mutants after overexpression of the checkpoint proteins. This analysis indicates that RAD9 and the RAD24 epistasis group can be placed onto two separate, additive branches that converge on MEC1 and RAD53. Furthermore, MEC3 appears to function downstream of RAD24/RAD17. The transcriptional response to DNA damage revealed unexpected and specific antagonism between RAD9 and RAD24. Further support for genetic interaction between RAD9 and RAD24 comes from study of the modification and activation of Rad53 after damage. Evidence for bypass of RAD53 function under some conditions is also presented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/emboj/17.9.2687

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de la Torre‐Ruiz, M., Green, C. M., & Lowndes, N. F.
Corresponding author
Lowndes, Noel F.
Venue
The EMBO Journal
Published
1998-05-01
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
2687-2698
ISSN
  • 0261-4189 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2075
OpenAlex
W2110112613
Cited by
147
References
33
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The EMBO Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Keywords
Rad9, Rad24, Rad17, Mec1, Rad53, DNA damage checkpoint, G1/S checkpoint, G2/M checkpoint, DNA damage response, UV irradiation, epistasis, genetic interactions, Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MeSH terms
Mating Factor, Cell Cycle, DNA Damage, DNA-Binding Proteins, DNA, Fungal, Exodeoxyribonucleases, Fungal Proteins, Kinetics, Mitosis, Nuclear Proteins, Peptides, Phosphorylation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Ultraviolet Rays, Nocodazole, G1 Phase, G2 Phase, S Phase, Cell Cycle Proteins, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, Intracellular Signaling Peptides and 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