Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16877815›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedicine & biotechnology2006

DNA damage and L1 retrotransposition.

Evan A Farkash, Eline T Luning Prak

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Acytota and the evolution of complexity.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Transposons, p53 and Genome Security.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Neuronal epigenetics and the aging synapse.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2015
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Evan A FarkashDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Eline T Luning Prak
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Regulation of L1 retrotranspositionR01CA108812 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LUNING PRAK, ELINE TJETSKE · 2004 to 2008
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA108812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Barbara McClintock was the first to suggest that transposons are a source of genome instability and that genotoxic stress assisted in their mobilization. The generation of double-stranded DNA breaks (DSBs) is a severe form of genotoxic stress that threatens the integrity of the genome, activates cell cycle checkpoints, and, in some cases, causes cell death. Applying McClintock's stress hypothesis to humans, are L1 retrotransposons, the most active autonomous mobile elements in the modern day human genome, mobilized by DSBs? Here, evidence that transposable elements, particularly retrotransposons, are mobilized by genotoxic stress is reviewed. In the setting of DSB formation, L1 mobility may be affected by changes in the substrate for L1 integration, the DNA repair machinery, or the L1 element itself. The review concludes with a discussion of the potential consequences of L1 mobilization in the setting of genotoxic stress.

Identifiers

PMID16877815
PMCPMC1559917
OpenAlexW2062191182

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.