Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1501255›Full record

ReviewJournal of molecular evolution1992

Evolutionary consequences of nonrandom damage and repair of chromatin domains.

T Boulikas

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of molecular evolution, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Chromatin self-organization by mutation bias.Journal of molecular evolution · 1994
    Article
  14. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

T BoulikasLinus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.
Institute of Molecular Medicine · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some evolutionary consequences of different rates and trends in DNA damage and repair are explained. Different types of DNA damaging agents cause nonrandom lesions along the DNA. The type of DNA sequence motifs to be preferentially attacked depends upon the chemical or physical nature of the assaulting agent and the DNA base composition. Higher-order chromatin structure, the nonrandom nucleosome positioning along the DNA, the absence of nucleosomes from the promoter regions of active genes, curved DNA, the presence of sequence-specific binding proteins, and the torsional strain on the DNA induced by an increased transcriptional activity all are expected to affect rates of damage of individual genes. Furthermore, potential Z-DNA, H-DNA, slippage, and cruciform structures in the regulatory region of some genes or in other genomic loci induced by torsional strain on the DNA are more prone to modification by genotoxic agents. A specific actively transcribed gene may be preferentially damaged over nontranscribed genes only in specific cell types that maintain this gene in active chromatin fractions because of (1) its decondensed chromatin structure, (2) torsional strain in its DNA, (3) absence of nucleosomes from its regulatory region, and (4) altered nucleosome structure in its coding sequence due to the presence of modified histones and HMG proteins. The situation in this regard of germ cell lineages is, of course, the only one to intervene in evolution. Most lesions in DNA such as those caused by UV or DNA alkylating agents tend to diminish the GC content of genomes. Thus, DNA sequences not bound by selective constraints, such as pseudogenes, will show an increase in their AT content during evolution as evidenced by experimental observations. On the other hand, transcriptionally active parts may be repaired at rates higher than inactive parts of the genome, and proliferating cells may display higher repair activities than quiescent cells. This might arise from a tight coupling of the repair process with both transcription and replication, all these processes taking place on the nuclear matrix. Repair activities differ greatly among species, and there is a good correlation between life span and repair among mammals. It is predicted that genes that are transcriptionally active in germ-cell lineages have a lower mutation rate than bulk DNA, a circumstance that is expected to be reflected in evolution. Exception to this rule might be genes containing potential Z-DNA, H-DNA, or cruciform structures in their coding or regulatory regions that appear to be refractory to repair.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionDNA DamageDNA RepairChromatinFemaleGerm CellsHumansChromatin

Identifiers

PMID1501255
OpenAlexW2066128609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.