Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17173371›Full record

ReviewChemical research in toxicology2006

Methylating agents and DNA repair responses: Methylated bases and sources of strand breaks.

Michael D Wyatt, Douglas L Pittman

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical research in toxicology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 216 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
216citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

216 citing papers in PubMed, 454 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. "ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Patterns of spontaneous and induced genomic alterations inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

156 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Michael D WyattDepartment of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, South Carolina College of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA. wyatt@cop.sc.edu
Douglas L Pittman
University of South Carolina · US

Funding

Thymineless stress, DNA repair and recombinationR01CA100450 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI WYATT, MICHAEL D. · 2004 to 2008
$1.3M
SUBSTRATE RECOGNITION MECHANISM OF DNA REPAIR ENZYMESK22ES000333 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI WYATT, MICHAEL D · 1999 to 2001
$209k
NCI NIH HHS CA 100450NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100450NIEHS NIH HHS K22 ES000333
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The chemical methylating agents methylmethane sulfonate (MMS) and N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) have been used for decades as classical DNA damaging agents. These agents have been utilized to uncover and explore pathways of DNA repair, DNA damage response, and mutagenesis. MMS and MNNG modify DNA by adding methyl groups to a number of nucleophilic sites on the DNA bases, although MNNG produces a greater percentage of O-methyl adducts. There has been substantial progress elucidating direct reversal proteins that remove methyl groups and base excision repair (BER), which removes and replaces methylated bases. Direct reversal proteins and BER, thus, counteract the toxic, mutagenic, and clastogenic effects of methylating agents. Despite recent progress, the complexity of DNA damage responses to methylating agents is still being discovered. In particular, there is growing understanding of pathways such as homologous recombination, lesion bypass, and mismatch repair that react when the response of direct reversal proteins and BER is insufficient. Furthermore, the importance of proper balance within the steps in BER has been uncovered with the knowledge that DNA structural intermediates during BER are deleterious. A number of issues complicate the elucidation of the downstream responses when direct reversal is insufficient or BER is imbalanced. These include inter-species differences, cell-type-specific differences within mammals and between cancer cell lines, and the type of methyl damage or BER intermediate encountered. MMS also carries a misleading reputation of being a radiomimetic, that is, capable of directly producing strand breaks. This review focuses on the DNA methyl damage caused by MMS and MNNG for each site of potential methylation to summarize what is known about the repair of such damage and the downstream responses and consequences if the damage is not repaired.

Indexed as

DNA BreaksDNA RepairAnimalsDNA MethylationHumansMethyl MethanesulfonateMethylnitronitrosoguanidineMethyl MethanesulfonateMethylnitronitrosoguanidine

Identifiers

PMID17173371
PMCPMC2542901
OpenAlexW1987021965

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.