Correct repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is critical for maintaining genome stability. Whereas gene conversion (GC)-mediated repair is mostly error-free, repair by break-induced replication (BIR) is associated with non-reciprocal translocations and loss of heterozygosity. We have previously shown that a Recombination Execution Checkpoint (REC) mediates this competition by preventing the BIR pathway from acting on DSBs that can be repaired by GC. Here, we asked if the REC can also determine whether the ends that are engaged in a GC-compatible configuration belong to the same break, since repair involving ends from different breaks will produce potentially deleterious translocations. We report that the kinetics of repair are markedly delayed when the two DSB ends that participate in GC belong to different DSBs (termed Trans) compared to the case when both DSB ends come from the same break (Cis). However, repair in Trans still occurs by GC rather than BIR, and the overall efficiency of repair is comparable. Hence, the REC is not sensitive to the "origin" of the DSB ends. When the homologous ends for GC are in Trans, the delay in repair appears to reflect their tethering to sequences on the other side of the DSB that themselves recombine with other genomic locations with which they share sequence homology. These data support previous observations that the two ends of a DSB are usually tethered to each other and that this tethering facilitates both ends encountering the same donor sequence. We also found that the presence of homeologous/repetitive sequences in the vicinity of a DSB can distract the DSB end from finding its bona fide homologous donor, and that inhibition of GC by such homeologous sequences is markedly increased upon deleting Sgs1 but not Msh6.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#12,344,996
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#6,179
of 9,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,545
of 340,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#150
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
