ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2009
Powerful mutators lurking in the genome.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A-to-I editing of Malacoherpesviridae RNAs supports the antiviral role of ADAR1 in mollusks.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Impact of DNA lesion repair, replication and formation on the mutational spectra of environmental carcinogens: Aflatoxin BDNA repair · 2018Review
- APOBEC3A/B deletion polymorphism and cancer risk.Carcinogenesis · 2018Article
- Association of a germline copy number polymorphism of APOBEC3A and APOBEC3B with burden of putative APOBEC-dependent mutations in breast cancer.Nature genetics · 2014Article
- APOBEC3 inhibits DEAD-END function to regulate microRNA activity.BMC molecular biology · 2013Article
- Human APOBEC3A isoforms translocate to the nucleus and induce DNA double strand breaks leading to cell stress and death.PloS one · 2013Article
- Promoters of Escherichia coli versus promoter islands: function and structure comparison.PloS one · 2013Article
- An ancient history of gene duplications, fusions and losses in the evolution of APOBEC3 mutators in mammals.BMC evolutionary biology · 2012Article
- APOBEC3 proteins and genomic stability: the high cost of a good defense.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2012Article
- Large-scale DNA editing of retrotransposons accelerates mammalian genome evolution.Nature communications · 2011Article
- Innate immune signaling induces high levels of TC-specific deaminase activity in primary monocyte-derived cells through expression of APOBEC3A isoforms.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2010Article
- The 30th anniversary of quasispecies. Meeting on 'Quasispecies: past, present and future'.EMBO reports · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human genome encodes numerous enzymes capable of deaminating polynucleotides. While they are capable of exquisite specificity, occasionally they result in hypermutation where up to 90 per cent of cytidine or adenosine residues may be edited. As such, they constitute a formidable anti-viral barrier, for no virus can survive such a high mutation rate. As the APOBEC3 group of cytidine deaminases edit single-stranded viral DNA, the crucial question is can they hyperedit chromosomal DNA? Everything points to a positive answer. Nonetheless, hypermutants per se have not yet been described, probably being countered by highly efficient mismatch repair. For the APOBEC3 genes, not only is their physiological function unknown, but also their role in the induction of cancer remains to be determined. Yet given the pace of research, all this is certain to change in the next few years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.