Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21052706›Full record

ReviewChromosoma2011

DNA double-strand break repair in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Bennie B L G Lemmens, Marcel Tijsterman

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chromosoma, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Biomolecules · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Loss of NSE-4 Perturbs Genome Stability and DNA Repair inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Frontiers in aging · 2022
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Deciphering Differential Life Stage Radioinduced Reproductive Decline inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bennie B L G LemmensDepartment of Toxicogenetics, Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum Gebouw 2, Postzone S-4 Postbus 9600, Einthovenweg 20, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marcel Tijsterman
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

European Research Council 203379
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Faithful repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) is vital for animal development, as inappropriate repair can cause gross chromosomal alterations that result in cellular dysfunction, ultimately leading to cancer, or cell death. Correct processing of DSBs is not only essential for maintaining genomic integrity, but is also required in developmental programs, such as gametogenesis, in which DSBs are deliberately generated. Accordingly, DSB repair deficiencies are associated with various developmental disorders including cancer predisposition and infertility. To avoid this threat, cells are equipped with an elaborate and evolutionarily well-conserved network of DSB repair pathways. In recent years, Caenorhabditis elegans has become a successful model system in which to study DSB repair, leading to important insights in this process during animal development. This review will discuss the major contributions and recent progress in the C. elegans field to elucidate the complex networks involved in DSB repair, the impact of which extends well beyond the nematode phylum.

Indexed as

DNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA RepairEvolution, MolecularAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansCell CycleChromosome DeletionDNA, Single-StrandedDNA, Single-Stranded

Identifiers

PMID21052706
PMCPMC3028100
OpenAlexW1971310206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.