How cohesin guides DNA repair via scanning and tethering

Wait 5 sec.

News & ViewsPublished: 02 June 2026Homology searchVanessa Borges Pires1 &Boris Pfander  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2180-50541 Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (2026) Cite this articleSubjectsHomologous recombinationNuclear organizationA broken chromosome must find an identical DNA sequence among billions of bases packed into the nucleus. Although homologous recombination solves this problem with remarkable accuracy, how the repair machinery locates the correct template within folded chromatin has remained unclear. Two recent studies show that cohesin’s loop-extruding and sister-chromatid tethering activities solve different parts of this search problem.This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institutionAccess optionsAccess Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journalsGet Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription27,99 € / 30 dayscancel any timeLearn moreSubscribe to this journalReceive 12 print issues and online access269,00 € per yearonly 22,42 € per issueLearn moreRent or buy this articlePrices vary by article typefrom$1.95to$39.95Learn morePrices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkoutFig. 1: Chromatid cohesion and loop extrusion facilitate homology search during DNA DSB repair.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.ReferencesMarin-Gonzalez, A. et al. Science 390, eadw1928 (2025).Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar Teloni, F. et al. Science 390, eadw0566 (2025).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Renkawitz, J., Lademann, C. A. & Jentsch, S. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 369–383 (2014).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Rao, S. S. P. et al. Cell 171, 305–320.e24 (2017).Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar Schwarzer, W. et al. Nature 551, 51–56 (2017).Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar Davidson, I. F. et al. Science 366, 1338–1345 (2019).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Kim, Y., Shi, Z., Zhang, H., Finkelstein, I. J. & Yu, H. Science 366, 1345–1349 (2019).Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar Ström, L., Lindroos, H. B., Shirahige, K. & Sjögren, C. Mol. Cell 16, 1003–1015 (2004).Article  PubMed  Google Scholar Ünal, E. et al. Mol. Cell 16, 991–1002 (2004).Article  PubMed  Google Scholar Piazza, A. et al. Nat. Cell Biol. 23, 1176–1186 (2021).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Arnould, C. et al. Nature 590, 660–665 (2021).Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar Renkawitz, J., Lademann, C. A., Kalocsay, M. & Jentsch, S. Mol. Cell 50, 261–272 (2013).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Peritore, M., Reusswig, K.-U., Bantele, S. C. S., Straub, T. & Pfander, B. Mol. Cell 81, 1841–1853.e4 (2021).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Piveteau, V. et al. EMBO J. 45, 3124–3155 (2026).Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar Biot, M. et al. Mol. Cell 84, 1826–1841.e5 (2024).Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar Download referencesAcknowledgementsWork in the B.P. lab is supported by funding by TU Dortmund University and the German Research Council (DFG, grants 466479039 and 445098914).Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsCell Biology, Dortmund Life Science Center (DOLCE), Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, GermanyVanessa Borges Pires & Boris PfanderAuthorsVanessa Borges PiresView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarBoris PfanderView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarCorresponding authorCorrespondence to Boris Pfander.Ethics declarationsCompeting interestsThe authors declare no competing interest.Rights and permissionsReprints and permissionsAbout this article