PreprintCited by 316DNA Repair MechanismsDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

polι, a remarkably error-prone human DNA polymerase

Open access

Abstract

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae RAD30 gene encodes DNA polymerase η. Humans possess two Rad30 homologs. One ( RAD30A/POLH ) has previously been characterized and shown to be defective in humans with the Xeroderma pigmentosum variant phenotype. Here, we report experiments demonstrating that the second human homolog ( RAD30B ), also encodes a novel DNA polymerase that we designate polι. polι, is a distributive enzyme that is highly error-prone when replicating undamaged DNA. At template G or C, the average error frequency was ∼1 × 10 −2 . Our studies revealed, however, a striking asymmetry in misincorporation frequency at template A and T. For example, template A was replicated with the greatest accuracy, with misincorporation of G, A, or C occurring with a frequency of ∼1 × 10 −4 to 2 × 10 −4 . In dramatic contrast, most errors occurred at template T, where the misincorporation of G was, in fact, favored ∼3:1 over the correct nucleotide, A, and misincorporation of T occurred at a frequency of ∼6.7 × 10 −1 . These findings demonstrate that polι is one of the most error-prone eukaryotic polymerases reported to date and exhibits an unusual misincorporation spectrum in vitro.

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 · 10.1101/gad.14.13.1642

Cites

67 of 67 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 68 references

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 316

Metadata

Authors
Tissier, A., McDonald, J. P., Frank, E. G., & Woodgate, R.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Genes & Development
Published
2000-07-01
Volume
14
Issue
13
Pages
1642-1650
ISSN
  • 0890-9369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5477
OpenAlex
W1908705633
Cited by
315
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genes & Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
DNA polymerase eta, error-prone DNA replication, xeroderma pigmentosum variant, Saccharomyces cerevisiae
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase, Humans, Isoenzymes, Mutation, DNA Primers

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