Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27561326›Full record

ArticleNature communications2016

Hypersensitivity to DNA damage in antephase as a safeguard for genome stability.

Femke M Feringa, Lenno Krenning, André Koch, Jeroen van den Berg, Bram van den Broek, Kees Jalink, René H Medema

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A concise guide to fluorescent cell cycle reporters for live-cell imaging.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  4. APC/C prevents a noncanonical order of cyclin/CDK activity to maintain CDK4/6 inhibitor-induced arrest.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Mitochondrial HNature communications · 2024
    Article
  6. FOXO transcription factors as mediators of stress adaptation.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Femke M FeringaDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
Lenno KrenningDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
André KochDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
Jeroen van den BergDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
Bram van den BroekDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1037-907X
Kees JalinkDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
René H MedemaDivision of Cell Biology I and Cancer Genomics Center, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Activation of the DNA-damage response can lead to the induction of an arrest at various stages in the cell cycle. These arrests are reversible in nature, unless the damage is too excessive. Here we find that checkpoint reversibility is lost in cells that are in very late G2, but not yet fully committed to enter mitosis (antephase). We show that antephase cells exit the cell cycle and enter senescence at levels of DNA damage that induce a reversible arrest in early G2. We show that checkpoint reversibility critically depends on the presence of the APC/C inhibitor Emi1, which is degraded just before mitosis. Importantly, ablation of the cell cycle withdrawal mechanism in antephase promotes cell division in the presence of broken chromosomes. Thus, our data uncover a novel, but irreversible, DNA-damage response in antephase that is required to prevent the propagation of DNA damage during cell division.

Indexed as

DNA DamageAnaphase-Promoting Complex-CyclosomeCell Cycle ProteinsCell LineChromosomes, HumanF-Box ProteinsG2 Phase Cell Cycle CheckpointsGenomic InstabilityHumansMitosisTime-Lapse ImagingAnaphase-Promoting Complex-CyclosomeCell Cycle ProteinsF-Box ProteinsFBXO5 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID27561326
PMCPMC5007458

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.