The DOI matches its Crossref record; 213 of the 213 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The same, only different – DNA damage checkpoints and their reversal throughout the cell cycle
Open accessAbstract
Cell cycle checkpoints activated by DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are essential for the maintenance of the genomic integrity of proliferating cells. Following DNA damage, cells must detect the break and either transiently block cell cycle progression, to allow time for repair, or exit the cell cycle. Reversal of a DNA-damage-induced checkpoint not only requires the repair of these lesions, but a cell must also prevent permanent exit from the cell cycle and actively terminate checkpoint signalling to allow cell cycle progression to resume. It is becoming increasingly clear that despite the shared mechanisms of DNA damage detection throughout the cell cycle, the checkpoint and its reversal are precisely tuned to each cell cycle phase. Furthermore, recent findings challenge the dogmatic view that complete repair is a precondition for cell cycle resumption. In this Commentary, we highlight cell-cycle-dependent differences in checkpoint signalling and recovery after a DNA DSB, and summarise the molecular mechanisms that underlie the reversal of DNA damage checkpoints, before discussing when and how cell fate decisions after a DSB are made.
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
1 retracted
Mitosis Inhibits DNA Double-Strand Break Repair to Guard Against Telomere Fusions
Orthwein, A., Fradet-Turcotte, A., Noordermeer, S. M., Canny, M. D., Brun, C. M., Strecker, J., Escribano-Diaz, C., & Durocher, D. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248024 · Cited by 319
RetractedThe p21 Cdk-interacting protein Cip1 is a potent inhibitor of G1 cyclin-dependent kinases.
Wade Harper, J. (1993) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(93)90499-g · Cited by 5,651
The DNA Damage Response: Making It Safe to Play with Knives
Ciccia, A., & Elledge, S. J. (2010) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2010.09.019 · Cited by 4,368
Participation of p53 protein in the cellular response to DNA damage.
Kastan, M. B., Onyekwere, O. C., Sidransky, D., Vogelstein, B., & Craig, R. W. (1991) · PubMed · Cited by 3,761
Requirement for p53 and p21 to Sustain G 2 Arrest After DNA Damage
Bunz, F., Dutriaux, A., Lengauer, C., Waldman, T., Zhou, S., Brown, J. P., Sedivy, J. M., Kinzler, K. W., & Vogelstein, B. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.282.5393.1497 · Cited by 2,803
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
hSIR2SIRT1 Functions as an NAD-Dependent p53 Deacetylase
Vaziri, H., Dessain, S. K., Eaton, E. N., Imai, S.-I., Frye, R. A., Pandita, T. K., Guarente, L., & Weinberg, R. A. (2001) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00527-x · Cited by 2,659
Hoeijmakers, J. H. J. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra0804615 · Cited by 2,239
Mice Lacking p21CIP1/WAF1 undergo normal development, but are defective in G1 checkpoint control
Deng, C., Zhang, P., Wade Harper, J., Elledge, S. J., & Leder, P. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90039-x · Cited by 2,113
Negative Control of p53 by Sir2α Promotes Cell Survival under Stress
Luo, J., Nikolaev, A. Y., Imai, S.-I., Chen, D., Su, F., Shiloh, A., Guarente, L., & Gu, W. (2001) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00524-4 · Cited by 2,081
Cited by
Plk1 Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy: From Laboratory to Clinics
Gutteridge, R. E. A., Ndiaye, M. A., Liu, X., & Ahmad, N. (2016) · Molecular Cancer Therapeutics · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.mct-15-0897 · Cited by 406
Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes in confined pathways
Nielsen, F. C., van Overeem Hansen, T., & Sørensen, C. S. (2016) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2016.72 · Cited by 367
Patterns of Early p21 Dynamics Determine Proliferation-Senescence Cell Fate after Chemotherapy
Hsu, C.-H., Altschuler, S. J., & Wu, L. F. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.041 · Cited by 181
Orgaz, J. L., Crosas-Molist, E., Sadok, A., Perdrix-Rosell, A., Maiques, O., Rodriguez-Hernandez, I., Monger, J., Mele, S., Georgouli, M., Bridgeman, V., et al. (2020) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2019.12.003 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaltiel, I. A., Krenning, L., Bruinsma, W., & Medema, R. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Cell Science
- Publisher
- The Company of Biologists
- Published
- 2015-01-01
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 607-20
- ISSN
- 0021-9533 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9137
- OpenAlex
- W2141022069
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 213
- FWCI
- 10.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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 same, only different – DNA damage checkpoints and their reversal throughout the cell cycle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1242/jcs.163766
- The paper
- Shaltiel, I. A., Krenning, L., Bruinsma, W., & Medema, R. H. (2015). The same, only different – DNA damage checkpoints and their reversal throughout the cell cycle. Journal of Cell Science. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.163766
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.
