4.6 Review

DNA Polymerases at the Eukaryotic Replication Fork Thirty Years after: Connection to Cancer

期刊

CANCERS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123489

关键词

DNA polymerases; proofreading exonucleases; replication fidelity; mutation rates; cancer predisposition

类别

资金

  1. RSF [20-15-00081]
  2. Government of the Russian Federation
  3. Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer
  4. Russian Science Foundation [20-15-00081] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simple Summary The etiology of cancer is linked to the occurrence of mutations during the reduplication of genetic material. Mutations leading to low replication fidelity are the culprits of many hereditary and sporadic cancers. The archetype of the current model of replication fork was proposed 30 years ago. In the sequel to our 2010 review with the words years after in the title inspired by A. Dumas's novels, we go over new developments in the DNA replication field and analyze how they help elucidate the effects of the genetic variants of DNA polymerases on cancer. Recent studies on tumor genomes revealed that mutations in genes of replicative DNA polymerases cause a predisposition for cancer by increasing genome instability. The past 10 years have uncovered exciting details about the structure and function of replicative DNA polymerases and the replication fork organization. The principal idea of participation of different polymerases in specific transactions at the fork proposed by Morrison and coauthors 30 years ago and later named division of labor, remains standing, with an amendment of the broader role of polymerase delta in the replication of both the lagging and leading DNA strands. However, cancer-associated mutations predominantly affect the catalytic subunit of polymerase epsilon that participates in leading strand DNA synthesis. We analyze how new findings in the DNA replication field help elucidate the polymerase variants' effects on cancer.

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

4.6
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