4.3 Review

Recent advances in understanding of the DNA double-strand break repair machinery of plants

期刊

DNA REPAIR
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 1-12

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.dnarep.2005.08.017

关键词

plant; recombination; DNA repair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Living cells suffer numerous and varied alterations of their genetic material. Of these, the DNA double-strand break (DSB) is both particularly threatening and common. Double-strand breaks arise from exposure. to DNA damaging agents, but also from cell metabolism-in a fortuitous manner during DNA replication or repair of other kinds of lesions and-in a programmed manner, for example during meiosis or V(D)J gene rearrangement. Cells possess several overlapping repair pathways to deal with these breaks, generally designated as genetic recombination. Genetic and biochemical studies have provided considerable amounts of data, about the proteins involved in recombination processes and their functions within these processes. Although they have long played a key role in building understanding of genetics, relatively little is known at the molecular level of the genetic recombination processes in plants. The use of reverse genetic approaches and the public availability of sequence tagged mutants in Arabidopsis thaliana have led to increasingly rapid progress in this field over recent years. The rapid progress of studies of recombination in plants is obviously not limited to the DSB repair machinery as such and we ask readers to understand that in order to maintain the focus and to rest within a reasonable length, we present only limited discussion of the exciting advances in the of plant meiosis field, which require a full review in their own right [1,2]. We thus present here an update on recent advances in understanding of the DSB repair machinery of plants, focussing on Arabidopsis and making a particular effort to place these in the context of more general of understanding of these processes. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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