Literature DB >> 23446515

Impediments to replication fork movement: stabilisation, reactivation and genome instability.

Sarah Lambert1, Antony M Carr.   

Abstract

Maintaining genome stability is essential for the accurate transmission of genetic material. Genetic instability is associated with human genome disorders and is a near-universal hallmark of cancer cells. Genetic variation is also the driving force of evolution, and a genome must therefore display adequate plasticity to evolve while remaining sufficiently stable to prevent mutations and chromosome rearrangements leading to a fitness disadvantage. A primary source of genome instability are errors that occur during chromosome replication. More specifically, obstacles to the movement of replication forks are known to underlie many of the gross chromosomal rearrangements seen both in human cells and in model organisms. Obstacles to replication fork progression destabilize the replisome (replication protein complex) and impact on the integrity of forked DNA structures. Therefore, to ensure the successful progression of a replication fork along with its associated replisome, several distinct strategies have evolved. First, there are well-orchestrated mechanisms that promote continued movement of forks through potential obstacles. Second, dedicated replisome and fork DNA stabilization pathways prevent the dysfunction of the replisome if its progress is halted. Third, should stabilisation fail, there are mechanisms to ensure damaged forks are accurately fused with a converging fork or, when necessary, re-associated with the replication proteins to continue replication. Here, we review what is known about potential barriers to replication fork progression, how these are tolerated and their impact on genome instability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23446515     DOI: 10.1007/s00412-013-0398-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chromosoma        ISSN: 0009-5915            Impact factor:   4.316


  129 in total

Review 1.  Checkpoint responses to replication fork barriers.

Authors:  Sarah Lambert; Antony M Carr
Journal:  Biochimie       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 4.079

Review 2.  Timing and spacing of ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass.

Authors:  Helle D Ulrich
Journal:  FEBS Lett       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 4.124

3.  Regulation of DNA replication fork progression through damaged DNA by the Mec1/Rad53 checkpoint.

Authors:  J A Tercero; J F Diffley
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-08-02       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Replisome instability, fork collapse, and gross chromosomal rearrangements arise synergistically from Mec1 kinase and RecQ helicase mutations.

Authors:  Jennifer A Cobb; Thomas Schleker; Vanesa Rojas; Lotte Bjergbaek; José Antonio Tercero; Susan M Gasser
Journal:  Genes Dev       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 11.361

5.  Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair.

Authors:  Eva Petermann; Manuel Luís Orta; Natalia Issaeva; Niklas Schultz; Thomas Helleday
Journal:  Mol Cell       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 17.970

6.  DNA polymerase alpha inhibition by aphidicolin induces gaps and breaks at common fragile sites in human chromosomes.

Authors:  T W Glover; C Berger; J Coyle; B Echo
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 4.132

7.  Checkpoint-mediated control of replisome-fork association and signalling in response to replication pausing.

Authors:  Chiara Lucca; Fabio Vanoli; Cecilia Cotta-Ramusino; Achille Pellicioli; Giordano Liberi; James Haber; Marco Foiani
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2004-02-12       Impact factor: 9.867

Review 8.  Chromosome fragile sites.

Authors:  Sandra G Durkin; Thomas W Glover
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 16.830

9.  Regulation of fragile sites expression in budding yeast by MEC1, RRM3 and hydroxyurea.

Authors:  Nadia Hashash; Anthony L Johnson; Rita S Cha
Journal:  J Cell Sci       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 5.285

10.  Ultrafine anaphase bridges, broken DNA and illegitimate recombination induced by a replication fork barrier.

Authors:  Sevil Sofueva; Fekret Osman; Alexander Lorenz; Roland Steinacher; Stefania Castagnetti; Jennifer Ledesma; Matthew C Whitby
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2011-05-16       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  48 in total

1.  Determinants of Replication-Fork Pausing at tRNA Genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Rani Yeung; Duncan J Smith
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 2.  Behavior of replication origins in Eukaryota - spatio-temporal dynamics of licensing and firing.

Authors:  Marcelina W Musiałek; Dorota Rybaczek
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 4.534

Review 3.  Replication fork regression and its regulation.

Authors:  Xiangzhou Meng; Xiaolan Zhao
Journal:  FEMS Yeast Res       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 2.796

4.  Shelterin components mediate genome reorganization in response to replication stress.

Authors:  Takeshi Mizuguchi; Nitika Taneja; Emiko Matsuda; Jon-Matthew Belton; Peter FitzGerald; Job Dekker; Shiv I S Grewal
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Metnase Mediates Loading of Exonuclease 1 onto Single Strand Overhang DNA for End Resection at Stalled Replication Forks.

Authors:  Hyun-Suk Kim; Elizabeth A Williamson; Jac A Nickoloff; Robert A Hromas; Suk-Hee Lee
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 6.  Time for remodeling: SNF2-family DNA translocases in replication fork metabolism and human disease.

Authors:  Sarah A Joseph; Angelo Taglialatela; Giuseppe Leuzzi; Jen-Wei Huang; Raquel Cuella-Martin; Alberto Ciccia
Journal:  DNA Repair (Amst)       Date:  2020-08-15

7.  Stalled replication forks generate a distinct mutational signature in yeast.

Authors:  Nicolai B Larsen; Sascha E Liberti; Ivan Vogel; Signe W Jørgensen; Ian D Hickson; Hocine W Mankouri
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  The DNA Pol ϵ stimulatory activity of Mrc1 is modulated by phosphorylation.

Authors:  Zhong-Xin Zhang; Jingjing Zhang; Qinhong Cao; Judith L Campbell; Huiqiang Lou
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 4.534

Review 9.  Tus-Ter as a tool to study site-specific DNA replication perturbation in eukaryotes.

Authors:  Nicolai B Larsen; Ian D Hickson; Hocine W Mankouri
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.534

Review 10.  Causes and consequences of replication stress.

Authors:  Michelle K Zeman; Karlene A Cimprich
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 28.824

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.