JCB logo
Sign up for e-mail content alerts
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

Published online 20 March 2006. doi:10.1083/jcb.1727iti2
The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525 $8.00
JCB, Volume 172, Number 7, 957-957
This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

In This Issue

Escaping a checkpoint


Figure 1
Replication continues in DNA-damaged embryos (top) unless translesion synthesis is blocked (bottom).

On page 999, Holway et al. reveal that worm embryos would rather risk genomic mutation than disturb the timing of cell division. DNA damage–induced checkpoints, the group finds, are silenced during early embryogenesis.

The need for the silencing arises because of the importance of timing in embryogenesis. At the worm's two-cell stage, for instance, a two-minute lag between the division times of the two cells is needed for germ line formation. Embryogenesis fails if this lag is extended, as would be expected upon DNA damage.

Holway and colleagues found, however, that genomic damage from UV or MMS treatments did not stall division in worm embryos. In somatic cells, DNA lesions block the progress of replication forks, whose stalling initiates the damage checkpoint. But replication forks advanced directly through the lesions in the embryos. This bypass required a translesion polymerase called Polh-1, which is able to synthesize DNA opposite damaged bases. The high expression levels of Polh-1 in embryos might at least partly explain their unusual ability to silence the checkpoint.

Fly and frog embryos do not actively silence the DNA damage checkpoint; mammalian systems have not yet been tested. Based on these findings, however, one might speculate that tumor cells that are resistant to chemotherapy might have acquired a heightened capacity for translesion synthesis.Formula



Nicole LeBrasseur

lebrasn{at}rockefeller.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Checkpoint silencing during the DNA damage response in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos
Antonia H. Holway, Seung-Hwan Kim, Adriana La Volpe, and W. Matthew Michael
J. Cell Biol. 2006 172: 999-1008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow PDF (Full Text)
Right arrow PPT slides of all figures
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JCB
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by LeBrasseur, N.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents