4.7 Review

DNA damage responses that enhance resilience to replication stress

期刊

CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR LIFE SCIENCES
卷 78, 期 21-22, 页码 6763-6773

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00018-021-03926-3

关键词

CMG helicase; DNA polymerase; Replication fork arrest; Fanconi anemia; Genome maintenance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During genome duplication, eukaryotic cells may encounter various replication stresses that can lead to chromosome breaks, genomic instability, and tumor development if not properly resolved. To prevent these consequences, cells have mechanisms in place to enhance the resilience of replication machineries against replication stresses.
During duplication of the genome, eukaryotic cells may experience various exogenous and endogenous replication stresses that impede progression of DNA replication along chromosomes. Chemical alterations in template DNA, imbalances of deoxynucleotide pools, repetitive sequences, tight DNA-protein complexes, and conflict with transcription can negatively affect the replication machineries. If not properly resolved, stalled replication forks can cause chromosome breaks leading to genomic instability and tumor development. Replication stress is enhanced in cancer cells due, for example, to the loss of DNA repair genes or replication-transcription conflict caused by activation of oncogenic pathways. To prevent these serious consequences, cells are equipped with diverse mechanisms that enhance the resilience of replication machineries to replication stresses. This review describes DNA damage responses activated at stressed replication forks and summarizes current knowledge on the pathways that promote faithful chromosome replication and protect chromosome integrity, including ATR-dependent replication checkpoint signaling, DNA cross-link repair, and SLX4-mediated responses to tight DNA-protein complexes that act as barriers. This review also focuses on the relevance of replication stress responses to selective cancer chemotherapies.

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

4.7
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