Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18285820›Full record

ReviewThe EMBO journal2008

DNA-damage repair; the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Razqallah Hakem

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The EMBO journal, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 245 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
245citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

245 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Bioscience reports · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

185 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.

Razqallah HakemDepartment of Medical Biophysics, Ontario Cancer Institute/UHN, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. rhakem@uhnres.utoronto.ca

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organisms have developed several DNA-repair pathways as well as DNA-damage checkpoints to cope with the frequent challenge of endogenous and exogenous DNA insults. In the absence or impairment of such repair or checkpoint mechanisms, the genomic integrity of the organism is often compromised. This review will focus on the functional consequences of impaired DNA-repair pathways. Although each pathway is addressed individually, it is essential to note that cross talk exists between repair pathways, and that there are instances in which a DNA-repair protein is involved in more than one pathway. It is also important to integrate DNA-repair process with DNA-damage checkpoints and cell survival, to gain a better understanding of the consequences of compromised DNA repair at both cellular and organismic levels. Functional consequences associated with impaired DNA repair include embryonic lethality, shortened life span, rapid ageing, impaired growth, and a variety of syndromes, including a pronounced manifestation of cancer.

Indexed as

DNA RepairAnimalsDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA DamageHumansDNA-Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID18285820
PMCPMC2262034

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.