Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20691183›Full record

ReviewFEBS letters2010

Collaboration and competition between DNA double-strand break repair pathways.

Elizabeth M Kass, Maria Jasin

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEBS letters, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 184 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
184citing papers in PubMed
13.7field-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

184 citing papers in PubMed, 325 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Genome editing strategies for targeted correction of β-globin mutation in sickle cell disease: From bench to bedside.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

124 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.

Elizabeth M KassDevelopmental Biology Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Maria Jasin
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

The Role of Id Proteins in Breast TumorigenesisP01CA094060 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI NORTON, LARRY · 2002 to 2018
$39.4M
RADIATION RESISTANT AND SENSITIVE CELLS DNA BREAK REPAIRR01GM054668 · NIGMS · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JASIN, MARIA · 1998 to 2015
$5.3M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA094060NCI NIH HHS P01CA94060NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM054668NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM54668
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks resulting from normal cellular processes including replication and exogenous sources such as ionizing radiation pose a serious risk to genome stability, and cells have evolved different mechanisms for their efficient repair. The two major pathways involved in the repair of double-strand breaks in eukaryotic cells are non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination. Numerous factors affect the decision to repair a double-strand break via these pathways, and accumulating evidence suggests these major repair pathways both cooperate and compete with each other at double-strand break sites to facilitate efficient repair and promote genomic integrity.

Indexed as

AnimalsBase SequenceBrainCell CycleConserved SequenceDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA DamageDNA RepairDNA ReplicationFanconi AnemiaGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2HomeostasisHumansMutationRecombination, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID20691183
PMCPMC3954739
OpenAlexW1972988800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.