Cited by 20DNA Repair MechanismsFungal and yeast genetics researchBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology

The DNA damage checkpoint pathways exert multiple controls on the efficiency and outcome of the repair of a double-stranded DNA gap

Open access
Haghnazari, E.·2004·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

A DNA gap repair assay was used to determine the effect of mutations in the DNA damage checkpoint system on the efficiency and outcome (crossover/non-crossover) of recombinational DNA repair. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae gap repair is largely achieved by homologous recombination. As a result the plasmid either integrates into the chromosome (indicative of a crossover outcome) or remains extrachromosomal (indicative of a non-crossover outcome). Deletion mutants of the MEC1 and RAD53 checkpoint kinase genes exhibited a 5-fold decrease in gap repair efficiency, showing that 80% of the gap repair events depended on functional DNA damage checkpoints. Epistasis analysis suggests that the DNA damage checkpoints affect gap repair by modulating Rad51 protein-mediated homologous recombination. While in wild-type cells only approximately 25% of the gap repair events were associated with a crossover outcome, Mec1-deficient cells exhibited a >80% crossover association. Also mutations in the effector kinases Rad53, Chk1 and Dun1 were found to affect crossover association of DNA gap repair to various degrees. The data suggest that the DNA damage checkpoints are important for the optimal functioning of recombinational DNA repair with multiple terminal targets to modulate the efficiency and outcome of homologous recombination.

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 · 10.1093/nar/gkh717

Cites

91 of 91 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?

  • In yeast, deletion of MEC1 and Rad53 checkpoint kinases or downstream effector kinases dramatically decreases double-strand break repair efficiency.

    “Similarly, such a checkpoint-dependent regulation of double-strand break repair has been observed in yeast where deletion of the MEC1 and Rad53 checkpoint kinases or downstream effector kinases led to a dramatic decrease in double-strand break repair efficiency (29,30).”

    From Phosphorylation of Nucleotide Excision Repair Factor Xeroderma Pigmentosum Group A by Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated and Rad3-Related–Dependent Checkpoint Pathway Promotes Cell Survival in Response to UV Irradiation (2006) · cites this paper as [30]

    In “Mec1 and Rad53 kinases are required for efficient gap repair” (page not provided), the paper reports a fivefold reduction in double-strand gap repair in mec1 and rad53 mutants. But it also reports that the downstream kinase mutants dun1 and chk1 did not differ significantly from wild type in repair frequency, so the claim overextends that finding to downstream effector kinases. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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: 1

  1. Orr-Weaver,T.L. and Szostak,J.W. (1983) Yeast transformation: the association between double-strand gap repair and crossover. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 80, 4417-4421.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haghnazari, E.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Haghnazari, E.
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2004-08-03
Volume
32
Issue
14
Pages
4257-4268
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W2125132000
Cited by
20
References
91
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (CA92276, R01CA092276)
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
DNA damage checkpoint, homologous recombination, Mec1, Rad53, Chk1, Dun1, RAD51, epistasis analysis, plasmid integration, Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MeSH terms
DNA Damage, DNA Repair, DNA-Binding Proteins, Mitosis, Mutation, Recombination, Genetic, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Transformation, Genetic, Signal Transduction, Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases, Cell Cycle Proteins, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Rad51 Recombinase, Checkpoint Kinase 2

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