The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE SOS RESPONSE: Recent Insights into umuDC-Dependent Mutagenesis and DNA Damage Tolerance
Abstract
▪ Abstract Be they prokaryotic or eukaryotic, organisms are exposed to a multitude of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damaging agents ranging from ultraviolet (UV) light to fungal metabolites, like Aflatoxin B 1. Furthermore, DNA damaging agents, such as reactive oxygen species, can be produced by cells themselves as metabolic byproducts and intermediates. Together, these agents pose a constant threat to an organism's genome. As a result, organisms have evolved a number of vitally important mechanisms to repair DNA damage in a high fidelity manner. They have also evolved systems (cell cycle checkpoints) that delay the resumption of the cell cycle after DNA damage to allow more time for these accurate processes to occur. If a cell cannot repair DNA damage accurately, a mutagenic event may occur. Most bacteria, including Escherichia coli, have evolved a coordinated response to these challenges to the integrity of their genomes. In E. coli, this inducible system is termed the SOS response, and it controls both accurate and potentially mutagenic DNA repair functions [reviewed comprehensively in ( 25 ) and also in ( 78 , 94 )]. Recent advances have focused attention on the umuD+C+-dependent, translesion DNA synthesis (TLS) process that is responsible for SOS mutagenesis ( 70 , 86 ). Here we discuss the SOS response of E. coli and concentrate in particular on the roles of the umuD+C+ gene products in promoting cell survival after DNA damage via TLS and a primitive DNA damage checkpoint.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The importance of repairing stalled replication forks
Cox, M. M., Goodman, M. F., Kreuzer, K. N., Sherratt, D. J., Sandler, S. J., & Marians, K. J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35003501 · Cited by 1,044
FIDELITY MECHANISMS IN DNA REPLICATION
Echols, H., & Goodman, M. F. (1991) · Annual Review of Biochemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.60.070191.002401 · Cited by 712 · cited 2×
“coli reestablishes replication of its genome following replication-arresting damage to its DNA [reviewed in (25) and (14)], a process known as replication restart (18) or induced replisome reactivation (36).”
BackgroundRoles of E. coli DNA polymerases IV and V in lesion-targeted and untargeted SOS mutagenesis
Tang, M., Pham, P., Shen, X., Taylor, J.-S., O'Donnell, M., Woodgate, R., & Goodman, M. F. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35010020 · Cited by 443
Low fidelity DNA synthesis by human DNA polymerase-η
Matsuda, T., Bebenek, K., Masutani, C., Hanaoka, F., & Kunkel, T. A. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35010014 · Cited by 372
Fidelity and Processivity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA Polymerase η
Washington, M. T., Johnson, R. E., Prakash, S., & Prakash, L. (1999) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.274.52.36835 · Cited by 181 · cited 1×
“cerevisiae RAD30 -encoded DNA Polη (31) and its human homolog, XP-V or human RAD30A(51, 52), despite being highly error-prone on undamaged templates (53, 90), appear to bypass thyminethymine cyclobutane dimers in a seemingly accurate manner by inserting two As opposite the lesion (31).”
Background
Cited by
Sensing DNA Damage Through ATRIP Recognition of RPA-ssDNA Complexes
Zou, L., & Elledge, S. J. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1083430 · Cited by 2,693
Stress-Induced Mutagenesis in Bacteria
Bjedov, I., Tenaillon, O., Gérard, B., Souza, V., Denamur, E., Radman, M., Taddei, F., & Matic, I. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1082240 · Cited by 587
Specialized DNA Polymerases, Cellular Survival, and the Genesis of Mutations
Friedberg, E. C., Wagner, R., & Radman, M. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1070236 · Cited by 443
Evolving responsively: adaptive mutation
Rosenberg, S. M. (2001) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/35080556 · Cited by 417
Regulation of Bacterial RecA Protein Function
Cox, M. M. (2007) · Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · doi:10.1080/10409230701260258 · Cited by 417
Metadata
- Authors
- Sutton, M. D., Smith, B. T., Godoy, V. G., & Walker, G. C.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Genetics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 479-497
- ISSN
- 0066-4197 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2948
- OpenAlex
- W2096359570
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: THE SOS RESPONSE: Recent Insights into umuDC-Dependent Mutagenesis and DNA Damage Tolerance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.479
- The paper
- Sutton, M. D., Smith, B. T., Godoy, V. G., & Walker, G. C. (2000). THE SOS RESPONSE: Recent Insights into umuDC-Dependent Mutagenesis and DNA Damage Tolerance. Annual Review of Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.479
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.