4.5 Article

Advances in Understanding the Complex Mechanisms of DNA Interstrand Cross-Link Repair

期刊

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012732

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R03 CA121411, R01 CA165911, K22 CA111525] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG043376] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIEHS NIH HHS [R01 ES016114] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

DNA interstrand cross-links (ICLs) are lesions caused by a variety of endogenous metabolites, environmental exposures, and cancer chemotherapeutic agents that have two reactive groups. The common feature of these diverse lesions is that two nucleotides on opposite strands are covalently joined. ICLs prevent the separation of two DNA strands and therefore essential cellular processes including DNA replication and transcription. ICLs are mainly detected in S phase when a replication fork stalls at an ICL. Damage signaling and repair of ICLs are promoted by the Fanconi anemia pathway and numerous posttranslational modifications of DNA repair and chromatin structural proteins. ICLs are also detected and repaired in nonreplicating cells, although the mechanism is less clear. A unique feature of ICL repair is that both strands of DNA must be incised to completely remove the lesion. This is accomplished in sequential steps to prevent creating multiple double-strand breaks. Unhooking of an ICL from one strand is followed by translesion synthesis to fill the gap and create an intact duplex DNA, harboring a remnant of the ICL. Removal of the lesion from the second strand is likely accomplished by nucleotide excision repair. Inadequate repair of ICLs is particularly detrimental to rapidly dividing cells, explaining the bone marrow failure characteristic of Fanconi anemia and why cross-linking agents are efficacious in cancer therapy. Herein, recent advances in our understanding of ICLs and the biological responses they trigger are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据