Cited by 23DNA Repair MechanismsFungal and yeast genetics researchCRISPR and Genetic Engineering

The fate of linear DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida glabrata: the role of homologous and non-homologous end joining

Open access
Corrigan, Mary W., Kerwin-Iosue, Christine L., Kuczmarski, Alexander S., Amin, Kunj B., Wykoff, Dennis D.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

In vivo assembly of plasmids has become an increasingly used process, as high throughput studies in molecular biology seek to examine gene function. In this study, we investigated the plasmid construction technique called gap repair cloning (GRC) in two closely related species of yeast - Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida glabrata. GRC utilizes homologous recombination (HR) activity to join a linear vector and a linear piece of DNA that contains base pair homology. We demonstrate that a minimum of 20 bp of homology on each side of the linear DNA is required for GRC to occur with at least 10% efficiency. Between the two species, we determine that S. cerevisiae is slightly more efficient at performing GRC. GRC is less efficient in rad52 deletion mutants, which are defective in HR in both species. In dnl4 deletion mutants, which perform less non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), the frequency of GRC increases in C. glabrata, whereas GRC frequency only minimally increases in S. cerevisiae, suggesting that NHEJ is more prevalent in C. glabrata. Our studies allow for a model of the fate of linear DNA when transformed into yeast cells. This model is not the same for both species. Most significantly, during GRC, C. glabrata performs NHEJ activity at a detectable rate (>5%), while S. cerevisiae does not. Our model suggests that S. cerevisiae is more efficient at HR because NHEJ is less prevalent than in C. glabrata. This work demonstrates the determinants for GRC and that while C. glabrata has a lower efficiency of GRC, this species still provides a viable option for GRC.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0069628

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Genetic work involving generation of deletion/tagged strains in Candida glabrata has been hampered by its preference for non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) over homologous recombination, making gene targeting less efficient than in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

    “Furthermore, genetic work involving generation of deletion/tagged strains in C. glabrata has been hampered by its preference for non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) over homologous recombination, which is required for targeted integration of a DNA fragment at double-strand breaks (DSB), thus making gene targeting much less efficient than in S. cerevisiae (Ueno et al. 2007; Corrigan et al. 2013; Cen,”

    From <i>Candida glabrata</i> : new tools and technologies—expanding the toolkit (2015) · cites this paper as Corrigan et al. 2013

  • NHEJ is more dominant over homologous recombination in C. glabrata.

    “as NHEJ is more dominant over homologous recombination in C. glabrata (Ueno et al. 2007; Corrigan et al. 2013; Cen, Fiori and Dijck 2015)”

    From <i>Candida glabrata</i> : new tools and technologies—expanding the toolkit (2015) · cites this paper as Corrigan et al. 2013

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. [18]Guthrie C, Fink GR (2002) Guide to yeast genetics and molecular and cell biology: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corrigan, M. W., Kerwin-Iosue, C. L., Kuczmarski, A. S., Amin, K. B., & Wykoff, D. D.
Affiliations
Villanova University (US)
Corresponding author
Wykoff, Dennis D.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-07-24
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e69628
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055369551
Cited by
23
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1121714)
  • Villanova University
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (T32ES007059)
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 › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Keywords
homologous recombination, non-homologous end joining, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida glabrata, linear DNA, plasmid assembly, RAD52, DNA repair
MeSH terms
DNA, Fungal, Recombination, Genetic, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida glabrata, DNA End-Joining Repair

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