The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Break-Induced Replication Is Highly Inaccurate
Open accessAbstract
DNA must be synthesized for purposes of genome duplication and DNA repair. While the former is a highly accurate process, short-patch synthesis associated with repair of DNA damage is often error-prone. Break-induced replication (BIR) is a unique cellular process that mimics normal DNA replication in its processivity, rate, and capacity to duplicate hundreds of kilobases, but is initiated at double-strand breaks (DSBs) rather than at replication origins. Here we employed a series of frameshift reporters to measure mutagenesis associated with BIR in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We demonstrate that BIR DNA synthesis is intrinsically inaccurate over the entire path of the replication fork, as the rate of frameshift mutagenesis during BIR is up to 2,800-fold higher than during normal replication. Importantly, this high rate of mutagenesis was observed not only close to the DSB where BIR is less stable, but also far from the DSB where the BIR replication fork is fast and stabilized. We established that polymerase proofreading and mismatch repair correct BIR errors. Also, dNTP levels were elevated during BIR, and this contributed to BIR-related mutagenesis. We propose that a high level of DNA polymerase errors that is not fully compensated by error-correction mechanisms is largely responsible for mutagenesis during BIR, with Pol δ generating many of the mutagenic errors. We further postulate that activation of BIR in eukaryotic cells may significantly contribute to accumulation of mutations that fuel cancer and evolution.
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
Kunkel, T. A., & Bebenek, K. (2000) · Annual Review of Biochemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev.biochem.69.1.497 · Cited by 1,003
Lee, J. A., Carvalho, C. M. B., & Lupski, J. R. (2007) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.037 · Cited by 914
Hastings, P. J., Ira, G., & Lupski, J. R. (2009) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000327 · Cited by 818
Estimating the Per-Base-Pair Mutation Rate in the Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Lang, G. I., & Murray, A. W. (2008) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.107.071506 · Cited by 344
DNA replication as a target of the DNA damage checkpoint
Zegerman, P., & Diffley, J. F. X. (2009) · DNA Repair · doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2009.04.023 · Cited by 128 · cited 1×
“Dun1p is a downstream target of the Mec1p and Rad53p checkpoint pathway that activates RNR by multiple mechanisms (reviewed in [49]).”
Background
Cited by
Mutational Processes Molding the Genomes of 21 Breast Cancers
Nik-Zainal, S., Alexandrov, L. B., Wedge, D. C., Van Loo, P., Greenman, C. D., Raine, K., Jones, D., Hinton, J., Marshall, J., Stebbings, L. A., et al. (2012) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.024 · Cited by 1,909
Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation.
Keane, T. M., Goodstadt, L., Danecek, P., White, M. A., Wong, K., Yalcin, B., Heger, A., Agam, A., Slater, G., Goodson, M., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10413 · Cited by 1,580
DNA double-strand break repair-pathway choice in somatic mammalian cells
Scully, R., Panday, A., Elango, R., & Willis, N. A. (2019) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-019-0152-0 · Cited by 1,457
Mechanisms underlying structural variant formation in genomic disorders
Carvalho, C. M. B., & Lupski, J. R. (2016) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2015.25 · Cited by 774
Global analysis of mutations driving microevolution of a heterozygous diploid fungal pathogen
Ene, I. V., Farrer, R. A., Hirakawa, M. P., Agwamba, K., Cuomo, C. A., & Bennett, R. J. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1806002115 · Cited by 155
“This is consistent with DNA double-strand break repair processes being both recombinogenic and mutagenic, as described in other species (50, 72, 94).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Deem, A., Keszthelyi, A., Blackgrove, T., Vayl, A., Coffey, B., Mathur, R., Chabes, A., & Malkova, A.
- Venue
- PLoS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-02-15
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e1000594
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W2054560592
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Break-Induced Replication Is Highly Inaccurate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000594
- The paper
- Deem, A., Keszthelyi, A., Blackgrove, T., Vayl, A., Coffey, B., Mathur, R., Chabes, A., & Malkova, A. (2011). Break-Induced Replication Is Highly Inaccurate. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000594
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.