Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21363960›Full record

ReviewGenes & development2011

Dynamics of DNA damage response proteins at DNA breaks: a focus on protein modifications.

Sophie E Polo, Stephen P Jackson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes & development, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 677 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
677citing papers in PubMed
–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

677 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. RSF1-Dependent PAR Turnover Promotes 53BP1 Liquid Condensate Formation at DNA Damage Sites.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fibrillarin: bridging ribosome biogenesis and apoptosis in cellular stress and disease.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

617 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.

Sophie E PoloThe Gurdon Institute, Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB21QN, United Kingdom.
Stephen P Jackson

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCancer Research UK 11224Cancer Research UK A11224Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome integrity is constantly monitored by sophisticated cellular networks, collectively termed the DNA damage response (DDR). A common feature of DDR proteins is their mobilization in response to genotoxic stress. Here, we outline how the development of various complementary methodologies has provided valuable insights into the spatiotemporal dynamics of DDR protein assembly/disassembly at sites of DNA strand breaks in eukaryotic cells. Considerable advances have also been made in understanding the underlying molecular mechanisms for these events, with post-translational modifications of DDR factors being shown to play prominent roles in controlling the formation of foci in response to DNA-damaging agents. We review these regulatory mechanisms and discuss their biological significance to the DDR.

Indexed as

DNA BreaksProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalAnimalsDNA RepairHumansMammalsProteinsSaccharomycesSignal TransductionProteins

Identifiers

PMID21363960
PMCPMC3049283

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.