Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20130602›Full record

ReviewLeukemia2010

gammaH2AX: a sensitive molecular marker of DNA damage and repair.

L-J Mah, A El-Osta, T C Karagiannis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Leukemia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 887 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
887citing 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

887 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Current status of radionuclide therapy targeting PARP in cancer: challenges and prospects.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

827 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

3 authors.

L-J MahEpigenomic Medicine, BakerIDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, The Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
A El-Osta
T C Karagiannis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phosphorylation of the Ser-139 residue of the histone variant H2AX, forming gammaH2AX, is an early cellular response to the induction of DNA double-strand breaks. Detection of this phosphorylation event has emerged as a highly specific and sensitive molecular marker for monitoring DNA damage initiation and resolution. Further, analysis of gammaH2AX foci has numerous other applications including, but not limited to, cancer and aging research. Quantitation of gammaH2AX foci has also been applied as a useful tool for the evaluation of the efficacy of various developmental drugs, particularly, radiation modifying compounds. This review focuses on the current status of gammaH2AX as a marker of DNA damage and repair in the context of ionizing radiation. Although the emphasis is on gamma-radiation-induced gammaH2AX foci, the effects of other genotoxic insults including exposure to ultraviolet rays, oxidative stress and chemical agents are also discussed.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairAnimalsBiomarkers, TumorHistonesHumansPhosphorylationBiomarkers, TumorH2AX protein, humanHistones

Identifiers

PMID20130602

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.