Rescuing stalled or damaged replication forks

Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2013, Pages

  Yeeles, Joseph T P ^a   Poli, Jérôme ^b   Marians, Kenneth J ^a   Pasero, Philippe ^b  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b INSTITUTE OF HUMAN GENETICS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS); EUKARYOTA; PROKARYOTA;

BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; DNA REPLICATION; EUKARYOTIC CELL; GENETIC RECOMBINATION; PHYSIOLOGY;

DNA DAMAGE; DNA REPAIR; DNA REPLICATION; EUKARYOTIC CELLS; MODELS, GENETIC; RECOMBINATION, GENETIC;

EID: 84877150263     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19430264     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012815     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. Achar Y.J., Balogh D, Haracska L. 2011. Coordinated protein and DNA remodeling by human HLTF on stalled replication fork. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108: 14073-14078.
2. Aguilera A., Gomez-Gonzalez B. 2008. Genome instability: A mechanistic view of its causes and consequences. Nat Rev Genet 9: 204-217.
3. Andersen S.L., Bergstralh DT, Kohl KP, LaRocque JR, Moore C.B., Sekelsky J. 2009. Drosophila MUS312 and the vertebrate ortholog BTBD12 interact with DNA structure-specific endonucleases in DNA repair and recombination. Mol Cell 35: 128-135.
4. Asai T., Bates DB, Kogoma T. 1994. DNA replication triggered by double-stranded breaks in E. coli: Dependence on homologous recombination functions. Cell 78: 1051-1061.
5. Atkinson J., McGlynn P. 2009. Replication fork reversal and the maintenance of genome stability. Nucleic Acids Res 37: 3475-3492.
6. Belle J.J., Casey A, Courcelle CT, Courcelle J. 2007. Inactivation of the DnaB helicase leads to the collapse and degradation of the replication fork: A comparison to UVinduced arrest. J Bacteriol 189: 5452-5462.
7. Bermejo R., Capra T, Jossen R, Colosio A, Frattini C, Carotenuto W., Cocito A, Doksani Y, Klein H, Gomez-Gonzalez B., et al. 2011. The replication checkpoint protects fork stability by releasing transcribed genes from nuclear pores. Cell 146: 233-246.
8. Betous R., Mason AC, Rambo RP, Bansbach CE, Badu-Nkansah A., Sirbu BM, Eichman BF, Cortez D. 2012. SMARCAL1 catalyzes fork regression and Holliday junction migration to maintain genome stability duringDNA replication. Genes Dev 26: 151-162.
9. Blastyak A., Pinter L, Unk I, Prakash L, Prakash S, Haracska L. 2007. Yeast Rad5 protein required for postreplication repair has a DNA helicase activity specific for replication fork regression. Mol Cell 28: 167-175.
10. Branzei D., Foiani M. 2010. Maintaining genome stability at the replication fork. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11: 208-219.
11. Byun T.S., Pacek M, Yee M-C, Walter JC, Cimprich KA. 2005. Functional uncoupling of MCM helicase and DNA polymerase activities activates the ATR-dependent checkpoint. Genes Dev 19: 1040-1052.
12. Chandler M., Bird RE, Caro L. 1975. The replication time of the Escherichia coli K12 chromosome as a function of cell doubling time. J Mol Biol 94: 127-132.
13. Cobb J.A., Schleker T, Rojas V, Bjergbaek L, Tercero JA, Gasser SM. 2005. Replisome instability, fork collapse, and gross chromosomal rearrangements arise synergistically from Mec1 kinase and RecQ helicase mutations. Genes Dev 19: 3055-3069.
14. Costanzo V. 2011. Brca2, Rad51 and Mre11: Performing balancing acts on replication forks. DNA Repair (Amst) 10: 1060-1065.
15. Cotta-Ramusino C, Fachinetti D, Lucca C, Doksani Y, Lopes M., Sogo J, Foiani M. 2005. Exo1 processes stalled replication forks and counteracts fork reversal in checkpoint-defective cells. Mol Cell 17: 153-159.
16. Courcelle J., Hanawalt PC. 2003. RecA-dependent recovery of arrested DNA replication forks. Annu Rev Genet 37: 611-646.
17. Courcelle J., Crowley DJ, Hanawalt PC. 1999. Recovery of DNA replication in UV-irradiated Escherichia coli requires both excision repair and RecF protein function. J Bacteriol 181: 916-922.
18. Courcelle J., Donaldson JR, Chow KH, Courcelle CT. 2003. DNA damage-induced replication fork regression and processing in Escherichia coli. Science 299: 1064-1067.
19. Courcelle C.T., Belle JJ, Courcelle J. 2005. Nucleotide excision repair or polymerase V-mediated lesion bypass can act to restore UV-arrested replication forks in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 187: 6953-6961.
20. Daigaku Y., Davies AA, Ulrich HD. 2010. Ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass is separable from genome replication. Nature 465: 951-955.
21. de la Paz Sanchez M, Costas C, Sequeira-Mendes J, Gutierrez C. 2012. Regulating DNA replication in plants. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4: a010140.
22. De Piccoli G, Torres-Rosell J, Aragon L. 2009. The unnamed complex:What dowe know about Smc5-Smc6? Chromosome Res 17: 251-263.
23. De Piccoli G, Katou Y, Itoh T, Nakato R, Shirahige K, Labib K. 2012. Replisome stability at defective DNA replication forks is independent of S phase checkpoint kinases. Mol Cell 45: 696-704.
24. Driscoll R., Cimprich KA. 2009. HARPing on about the DNA damage response during replication. Genes Dev 23: 2359-2365.
25. Duro E., Vaisica JA, Brown GW, Rouse J. 2008. Budding yeast Mms22 and Mms1 regulate homologous recombination induced by replisome blockage. DNA Repair (Amst) 7: 811-818.
26. Edmunds C.E., Simpson LJ, Sale JE. 2008. PCNA ubiquitination and REV1 define temporally distinct mechanisms for controlling translesion synthesis in the avian cell line DT40. Mol Cell 30: 519-529.
27. Falbo K.B., Alabert C, Katou Y, Wu S, Han J, Wehr T, Xiao J, He X., Zhang Z, Shi Y, et al. 2009. Involvement of a chromatin remodeling complex in damage tolerance during DNA replication. Nat Struct Mol Biol 16: 1167-1172.
28. Fekairi S., Scaglione S, Chahwan C, Taylor ER, Tissier A, Coulon S., Dong M-Q, Ruse C, Yates Iii JR, Russell P, et al. 2009. Human SLX4 is a Holliday junction resolvase subunit that binds multiple DNA repair/recombination endonucleases. Cell 138: 78-89.
29. Flott S., Alabert C, Toh GW, Toth R, Sugawara N, Campbell DG, Haber JE, Pasero P, Rouse J. 2007. Phosphorylation of Slx4 byMec1 and Tel1 regulates the single-strand annealing mode ofDNA repair in budding yeast. Mol Cell Biol 27: 6433-6445.
30. Freidberg E.C., Walker GC, Siede W, Wood RD, Schultz RA, Ellenberger T. 2005. DNArepair and mutagenesis, 2nd ed. ASM Press, Washington.
31. Froget B., Blaisonneau J, Lambert S, Baldacci G. 2008. Cleavage of stalled forks by fission yeast Mus81/Eme1 in absence of DNA replication checkpoint. Mol Biol Cell 19: 445-456.
32. Fu Y.V., Yardimci H, Long DT, Ho TV, Guainazzi A, Bermudez V.P., Hurwitz J, van Oijen A, Scharer OD, Walter JC. 2011. Selective bypass of a lagging strand roadblock by the eukaryotic replicative DNA helicase. Cell 146: 931-941.
33. Gabbai C.B., Marians KJ. 2010. Recruitment to stalled replication forks of the PriA DNA helicase and replisomeloading activities is essential for survival. DNA Repair (Amst) 9: 202-209.
34. Gambus A., van Deursen F, Polychronopoulos D, Foltman M, Jones RC, Edmondson RD, Calzada A, Labib K. 2009. A key role for Ctf4 in coupling the MCM2-7 helicase to DNA polymerase a within the eukaryotic replisome. EMBO J 28: 2992-3004.
35. Gari K., Decaillet C, Stasiak AZ, Stasiak A, Constantinou A. 2008. The Fanconi anemia protein FANCMcan promote branch migration of Holliday junctions and replication forks. Mol Cell 29: 141-148.
36. Ge X.Q., Jackson DA, Blow JJ. 2007. Dormant origins licensed by excess Mcm2-7 are required for human cells to survive replicative stress. Genes Dev 21: 3331-3341.
37. Goodman M.F., Woodgate R. 2013. Translesion DNA polymerases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol doi: 10.1101/ cshperspect.a010363.
38. Han J., Zhou H, Horazdovsky B, Zhang K, Xu RM, Zhang Z. 2007. Rtt109 acetylates histone H3 lysine 56 and functions in DNA replication. Science 315: 653-655.
39. Hanada K., Budzowska M, Davies SL, van Drunen E, Onizawa H., Beverloo HB, Maas A, Essers J, Hickson ID, Kanaar R. 2007. The structure-specific endonuclease Mus81 contributes to replication restart by generating double-strand DNA breaks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 14: 1096-1104.
40. Hashimoto Y., Chaudhuri AR, Lopes M, Costanzo V. 2010. Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis. Nat Struct Mol Biol 17: 1305-1311.
41. Hashimoto Y., Puddu F, Costanzo V. 2012. RAD51-and MRE11-dependent reassembly of uncoupled CMG helicase complex at collapsed replication forks. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19: 17-24.
42. Hastings P.J., Ira G, Lupski JR. 2009. A microhomology-mediated break-induced replication model for the origin of human copy number variation. PLoS Genet 5: e1000327.
43. Heller R.C., Marians KJ. 2005a. Unwinding of the nascent lagging strand by Rep and PriA enables the direct restart of stalled replication forks. J Biol Chem 280: 34143-34151.
44. Heller R.C., Marians KJ. 2005b. The disposition of nascent strands at stalled replication forks dictates the pathway of replisome loading during restart. Mol Cell 17: 733-743.
45. Heller R.C., Marians KJ. 2006a. Replication fork reactivation downstream of a blocked nascent leading strand. Nature 439: 557-562.
46. Heller R.C., Marians KJ. 2006b. Replisome assembly and the direct restart of stalled replication forks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 932-943.
47. Higgins N.P., Kato K, Strauss B. 1976. A model for replication repair in mammalian cells. J Mol Biol 101: 417-425.
48. Higuchi K., Katayama T, Iwai S, Hidaka M, Horiuchi T, Maki H. 2003. Fate ofDNA replication fork encountering a single DNA lesion during oriC plasmid DNA replication in vitro. Genes Cells 8: 437-449.
49. Ibarra A., Schwob E, Mendez J. 2008. Excess MCM proteins protect human cells from replicative stress by licensing backup origins of replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105: 8956-8961.
50. Iyer V.N., Rupp WD. 1971. Usefulness of benzoylated naphthoylated DEAE-cellulose to distinguish and fractionate double-strandedDNA bearing different extents of singlestranded regions. Biochem Biophys Acta 228: 117-126.
51. Kai M., Boddy MN, Russell P, Wang TS. 2005. Replication checkpoint kinase Cds1 regulates Mus81 to preserve genome integrity during replication stress. Genes Dev 19: 919-932.
52. Kanke M., Kodama Y, Takahashi TS, Nakagawa T, Masukata H. 2012. Mcm10 plays an essential role in origin DNA unwinding after loading of the CMG components. EMBO J 31: 2182-2194.
53. Kannouche P.L., Wing J, Lehmann AR. 2004. Interaction of human DNA polymerase h with monoubiquitinated PCNA: A possible mechanism for the polymerase switch in response to DNA damage. Mol Cell 14: 491-500.
54. Karras G.I., Jentsch S. 2010. The RAD6 DNA damage tolerance pathway operates uncoupled from the replication fork and is functional beyond S phase. Cell 141: 255-267.
55. Katou Y., Kanoh Y, Bando M, Noguchi H, Tanaka H, Ashikari T., Sugimoto K, Shirahige K. 2003. S-phase checkpoint proteins Tof1 and Mrc1 form a stable replication-pausing complex. Nature 424: 1078-1083.
56. Khidhir M.A., Casaregola S, Holland IB. 1985. Mechanism of transient inhibition of DNA synthesis in ultraviolet-irradiated E. coli: Inhibition is independent of recA whilst recovery requires RecA protein itself and an additional, inducible SOS function. Mol Gen Genet 199: 133-140.
57. Kilkenny M.L., De Piccoli G, Perera RL, Labib K, Pellegrini L. 2012. A conserved motif in the C-terminal tail of DNA polymerase a tethers primase to the eukaryotic replisome. J Biol Chem 287: 23740-23747.
58. Kunkel TA. 2004. DNA replication fidelity. J Biol Chem 279: 16895-16898.
59. Lambert S., Froget B, Carr AM. 2007. Arrested replication fork processing: Interplay between checkpoints and recombination. DNA Repair (Amst) 6: 1042-1061.
60. Lambert S., Mizuno K, Blaisonneau J, Martineau S, Chanet R., Freon K, Murray JM, Carr AM, Baldacci G. 2010. Homologous recombination restarts blocked replication forks at the expense of genome rearrangements by template exchange. Mol Cell 39: 346-359.
61. Lehmann A.R., Fuchs RP. 2006. Gaps and forks in DNA replication: Rediscovering old models. DNA Repair (Amst) 5: 1495-1498.
62. Lia G., Michel B, Allemand JF. 2012. Polymerase exchange during Okazaki fragment synthesis observed in living cells. Science 335: 328-331.
63. Lindahl T. 1993. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature 362: 709-715.
64. Lopes M., Foiani M, Sogo JM. 2006. Multiple mechanisms control chromosome integrity after replication fork uncoupling and restart at irreparable UV lesions. Mol Cell 21: 15-27.
65. Luke B., Versini G, Jaquenoud M, Zaidi IW, Kurz T, Pintard L., Pasero P, Peter M. 2006. The cullin Rtt101p promotes replication fork progression through damaged DNA and natural pause sites. Curr Biol 16: 786-792.
66. Lusetti S.L., Cox MM. 2002. The bacterial RecA protein and the recombinational DNA repair of stalled replication forks. Annu Rev Biochem 71: 71-100.
67. Lydeard J.R., Lipkin-Moore Z, Sheu Y-J, Stillman B, Burgers P.M., Haber JE. 2010. Break-induced replication requires all essentialDNA replication factors except those specific for pre-RC assembly. Genes Dev 24: 1133-1144.
68. Makarova K.S., Koonin EV. 2013. Archaeology of eukaryotic DNA replication. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a012963.
69. Masumoto H., Hawke D, Kobayashi R, Verreault A. 2005. A role for cell-cycle-regulated histone H3 lysine 56 acetylation in the DNA damage response. Nature 436: 294-298.
70. McGlynn P, Lloyd RG. 2000. Modulation of RNA polymerase by (p)ppGpp reveals a RecG-dependent mechanism for replication fork progression. Cell 101: 35-45.
71. McGlynn P, Lloyd RG. 2002. Recombinational repair and restart of damaged replication forks. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 3: 859-870.
72. McGlynn P, Lloyd RG, Marians KJ. 2001. Formation of Holliday junctions by regression of nascent DNA in intermediates containing stalled replication forks: RecG stimulates regression even when the DNA is negatively supercoiled. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98: 8235-8240.
73. McInerney P, O'Donnell M. 2004. Functional uncoupling of twin polymerases: Mechanism of polymerase dissociation from a lagging-strand block. J Biol Chem 279: 21543-21551.
74. McInerney P, Johnson A, Katz F, O'Donnell M. 2007. Characterization of a triple DNA polymerase replisome. Mol Cell 27: 527-538.
75. Mezzina M., Menck CF, Courtin P, Sarasin A. 1988. Replication of simian virus 40 DNA after UV irradiation: Evidence of growing fork blockage and single-stranded gaps in daughter strands. J Virol 62: 4249-4258.
76. Minca E.C., Kowalski D. 2010. Multiple Rad5 activities mediate sister chromatid recombination to bypass DNA damage at stalled replication forks. Mol Cell 38: 649-661.
77. Mizuno K., Lambert S, Baldacci G, Murray JM, Carr AM. 2009. Nearby inverted repeats fuse to generate acentric and dicentric palindromic chromosomes by a replication template exchange mechanism. Genes Dev 23: 2876-2886.
78. Moldovan G-L, Pfander B, Jentsch S. 2007. PCNA, the maestro of the replication fork. Cell 129: 665-679.
79. Moriel-Carretero M, Aguilera A. 2010. A postincision-deficient TFIIH causes replication fork breakage and uncovers alternative Rad51-or Pol32-mediated restart mechanisms. Mol Cell 37: 690-701.
80. Muñoz IM, Hain K, Déclais A-C, Gardiner M, Toh GW, Sanchez-Pulido L, Heuckmann JM, Toth R, Macartney T, Eppink B., et al. 2009. Coordination of structure-specific nucleases by human SLX4/BTBD12 is required for DNA repair. Mol Cell 35: 116-127.
81. Nelson S.W., Benkovic SJ. 2010. Response of the bacteriophage T4 replisome to noncoding lesions and regression of a stalled replication fork. J Mol Biol 401: 743-756.
82. Ohouo P.Y., Bastos de Oliveira FM, Almeida BS, Smolka MB. 2010. DNA damage signaling recruits the Rtt107-Slx4 scaffolds via Dpb11 to mediate replication stress response. Mol Cell 39: 300-306.
83. Pages V., Fuchs RP. 2003. Uncoupling of leading-and lagging-strand DNA replication during lesion bypass in vivo. Science 300: 1300-1303.
84. Papamichos-Chronakis M, Peterson CL. 2008. The Ino80 chromatin-remodeling enzyme regulates replisome function and stability. Nat Struct Mol Biol 15: 338-345.
85. Petermann E., Helleday T. 2010. Pathways of mammalian replication fork restart. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 11: 683-687.
86. Petermann E., Orta ML, Issaeva N, Schultz N, Helleday T. 2010. Hydroxyurea-stalled replication forks become progressively inactivated and require two different RAD51-mediated pathways for restart and repair. Mol Cell 37: 492-502.
87. Piwko W., Buser R, Peter M. 2011. Rescuing stalled replication forks: MMS22L-TONSL, a novel complex for DNA replication fork repair in human cells. Cell Cycle 10: 1703-1705.
88. Poli J., Tsaponina O, Crabbe L, Keszthelyi A, Pantesco V, Chabes A., Lengronne A, Pasero P. 2012. dNTP pools determine fork progression and origin usage under replication stress. EMBO J 31: 883-894.
89. Ray Chaudhuri A, Hashimoto Y, Herrador R, Neelsen KJ, Fachinetti D., Bermejo R, Cocito A, Costanzo V, Lopes M. 2012. Topoisomerase I poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal. Nat Struct Mol Biol 19: 417-423.
90. Reyes-Lamothe R, Sherratt DJ, Leake MC. 2010. Stoichiometry and architecture of active DNA replication machinery in Escherichia coli. Science 328: 498-501.
91. Ricke R.M., Bielinsky AK. 2004. Mcm10 regulates the stability and chromatin association of DNA polymerase-a. Mol Cell 16: 173-185.
92. Roberts T.M., Zaidi IW, Vaisica JA, Peter M, Brown GW. 2008. Regulation of Rtt107 recruitment to stalled DNA replication forks by the cullin Rtt101 and the Rtt109 acetyltransferase. Mol Biol Cell 19: 171-180.
93. Robu M.E., Inman RB, Cox MM. 2001. RecA protein promotes the regression of stalled replication forks in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98: 8211-8218.
94. Rudolph C.J., Upton AL, Lloyd RG. 2007. Replication fork stalling and cell cycle arrest in UV-irradiated Escherichia coli. Genes Dev 21: 668-681.
95. Rupp WD. 1996. DNA repair mechanisms. In Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium: Cellular and molecular biology (ed. Neidhardt FC), pp. 2277-2294. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
96. Rupp W.D., Howard-Flanders P. 1968. Discontinuities in the DNA synthesized in an excision-defective strain of Escherichia coli following ultraviolet irradiation. J Mol Biol 31: 291-304.
97. Schlacher K., Christ N, Siaud N, Egashira A, Wu H, Jasin M. 2011. Double-strand break repair-independent role for BRCA2 in blocking stalled replication fork degradation by MRE11. Cell 145: 529-542.
98. Segurado M., Diffley JFX. 2008. Separate roles for the DNA damage checkpoint protein kinases in stabilizing DNA replication forks. Genes Dev 22: 1816-1827.
99. Shimada K., Oma Y, Schleker T, Kugou K, Ohta K, Harata M, Gasser SM. 2008. Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex promotes recovery of stalled replication forks. Curr Biol 18: 566-575.
100. Sirbu B.M., Couch FB, Feigerle JT, Bhaskara S, Hiebert SW, Cortez D. 2011. Analysis of protein dynamics at active, stalled, and collapsed replication forks. Genes Dev 25: 1320-1327.
101. Sogo J.M., Lopes M, Foiani M. 2002. Fork reversal and ssDNA accumulation at stalled replication forks owing to checkpoint defects. Science 297: 599-602.
102. Sun W., Nandi S, Osman F, Ahn JS, Jakovleska J, Lorenz A, Whitby MC. 2008. The FANCMortholog Fml1 promotes recombination at stalled replication forks and limits crossing over during DNA double-strand break repair. Mol Cell 32: 118-128.
103. Svendsen J.M., Smogorzewska A, Sowa ME, O'Connell BC, Gygi S.P., Elledge SJ, Harper JW. 2009. Mammalian BTBD12/SLX4 assembles a Holliday junction resolvase and is required for DNA repair. Cell 138: 63-77.
104. Tanaka H., Katou Y, Yagura M, Saitoh K, Itoh T, Araki H, Bando M., Shirahige K. 2009. Ctf4 coordinates the progression of helicase and DNA polymerase a. Genes Cells 14: 807-820.
105. Tittel-Elmer M, Alabert C, Pasero P, Cobb JA. 2009. The MRX complex stabilizes the replisome independently of the S phase checkpoint during replication stress. EMBO J 28: 1142-1156.
106. Tourrière H, Versini G, Cordón-Preciado V, Alabert C, Pasero P. 2005. Mrc1 and Tof1 promote replication fork progression and recovery independently of Rad53. Mol Cell 19: 699-706.
107. Ulrich HD. 2011. Timing and spacing of ubiquitin-dependent DNA damage bypass. FEBS Lett 585: 2861-2867.
108. Van C., Yan S, Michael WM, Waga S, Cimprich KA. 2010. Continued primer synthesis at stalled replication forks contributes to checkpoint activation. J Cell Biol 189: 233-246.
109. van Deursen F, Sengupta S, De Piccoli G, Sanchez-Diaz A, Labib K. 2012. Mcm10 associates with the loaded DNA helicase at replication origins and defines a novel step in its activation. EMBO J 31: 2195-2206.
110. Watase G., Takisawa H, Kanemaki MT. 2012. Mcm10 plays a role in functioning of the eukaryotic replicative DNA helicase, Cdc45-Mcm-GINS. Curr Biol 22: 343-349.
111. + strains of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci 84: 6805-6809.
112. Wurtele H., Bacal J, Schalck Kaiser G, St-Hilaire E, Lee EH, Dorn J.F., Maddox P, Lisby M, Pasero P, Verreault A. 2011. Histone H3 lysine 56 acetylation and the response to DNA replication fork damage. Mol Cell Biol 32: 154-172.
113. Xu L., Marians KJ. 2003. PriA mediates DNA replication pathway choice at recombination intermediates. Mol Cell 11: 817-826.
114. Yan S., Michael WM. 2009. TopBP1 and DNA polymerase-a directly recruit the 9-1-1 complex to stalled DNA replication forks. J Cell Biol 184: 793-804.
115. Yeeles J.T., Dillingham MS. 2010. The processing of doublestranded DNA breaks for recombinational repair by helicase-nuclease complexes. DNA Repair (Amst) 9: 276-285.
116. Yeeles J.T., Marians KJ. 2011. The Escherichia coli replisome is inherently DNA damage tolerant. Science 334: 235-238.
117. Zhu W., Ukomadu C, Jha S, Senga T, Dhar SK, Wohlschlegel JA, Nutt LK, Kornbluth S, Dutta A. 2007. Mcm10 and And-1/CTF4 recruit DNA polymerase a to chromatin for initiation of DNA replication. Genes Dev 21: 2288-2299.