Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21222199›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2010

Preservation of genomic integrity in mouse embryonic stem cells.

Peter J Stambrook, Elisia D Tichy

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Repetitive Sequence Stability in Embryonic Stem Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  3. DPPA5A suppresses the mutagenic TLS and MMEJ pathways by modulating the cryptic splicing ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. A Tale of Two States: Pluripotency Regulation of Telomeres.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Peter J StambrookDepartment of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45267-0524, USA, stambrpj@ucmail.uc.edu.
Elisia D Tichy
University of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

Pathways to Mutagenesis in vivo and in Stem CellsR01ES012695 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI STAMBROOK, PETER J. · 2006 to 2009
$1.7M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES012695
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embryonic stem (ES) cells and germ cells have the potential to give rise to an entire organism. A common requirement is that both must have very robust mechanisms to preserve the integrity of their genomes. This is particularly true since somatic cells have very high mutation frequencies approaching 10-4 in vivo that would lead to unacceptable levels of fetal lethality and congenital defects. Notably, between 70% and 80% of mutational events monitored at a heterozygous endogenous selectable marker were loss of heterozygosity due to mitotic recombination, a mechanism that affects multiple heterozygous loci between the reporter gene and the site of crossing over. This chapter examines three mechanisms by which mouse embryonic stem cells preserve their genomic integrity. The first entails suppression of mutation and recombination between chromosome homologues by two orders of magnitude when compared with isogenic mouse embryo fibroblasts which had a mutation frequency similar to that seen in adult somatic cells. The second renders mouse ES cells hypersensitive to environmental challenge and eliminates damaged cells from the self-renewing population. Mouse ES cells lack a G1 checkpoint so that cells damaged by exogenous insult such as ionizing radiation do not arrest at the G1/S phase checkpoint but progress into the S phase where the damaged DNA is replicated, the damage exacerbated and the cells driven to apoptosis. The third mechanism examines how mouse ES cells repair double strand DNA breaks. Somatic cells predominantly utilize error prone nonhomologous end joining which, from a teleological perspective, would be disadvantageous for ES cells since it would promote accumulation of mutations. When ES cells were tested for the preferred pathway of double strand DNA break repair, they predominantly utilized the high fidelity homology-mediated repair pathway, thereby minimizing the incurrence of mutations during the repair process. When mouse ES cells are induced to differentiate, the predominant repair pathway switches from homology-mediated repair to nonhomologous end joining that is characteristic of somatic cells.

Indexed as

DNA RepairMouse Embryonic Stem CellsAnimalsDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA DamageEmbryonic Stem CellsGenomeGenomicsMiceRecombination, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID21222199
PMCPMC7339036
OpenAlexW97301184

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.