Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18198332›Full record

ReviewGenes & development2008

DNA damage response at functional and dysfunctional telomeres.

Maria Pia Longhese

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes & development, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Early Environment and Telomeres: a Long-Term Toxic Relationship.Current environmental health reports · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria Pia LongheseDipartimento di Biotecnologie e Bioscienze, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. mariapia.longhese@unimib.it
University of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ends of eukaryotic chromosomes have long been defined as structures that must avoid being detected as DNA breaks. They are protected from checkpoints, homologous recombination, end-to-end fusions, or other events that normally promote repair of intrachromosomal DNA breaks. This differentiation is thought to be the consequence of a unique organization of chromosomal ends into specialized nucleoprotein complexes called telomeres. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that proteins governing the DNA damage response are intimately involved in the regulation of telomeres, which undergo processing and structural changes that elicit a transient DNA damage response. This suggests that functional telomeres can be recognized as DNA breaks during a temporally limited window, indicating that the difference between a break and a telomere is less defined than previously assumed.

Indexed as

DNA DamageAnimalsDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA RepairDNA, Single-StrandedEukaryotic CellsModels, GeneticRecombination, GeneticTelomereDNA, Single-Stranded

Identifiers

PMID18198332
PMCPMC2731633
OpenAlexW2130910832

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.