ArticleJournal of the American Chemical Society2011
Turn-on DNA damage sensors for the direct detection of 8-oxoguanine and photoproducts in native DNA.
Article in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single Cell Determination of 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine by Fluorescence Techniques: Antibody vs. Avidin Labeling.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- In Vitro Fluorogenic Real-Time Assay of the Repair of Oxidative DNA Damage.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2015Article
- Split-protein systems: beyond binary protein-protein interactions.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The integrity of the genetic information in all living organisms is constantly threatened by a variety of endogenous and environmental insults. To counter this risk, the DNA-damage response is employed for repairing lesions and maintaining genomic integrity. However, an aberrant DNA-damage response can potentially lead to genetic instability and mutagenesis, carcinogenesis, or cell death. To directly monitor DNA damage events in the context of native DNA, we have designed two new sensors utilizing genetically fragmented firefly luciferase (split luciferase). The sensors are comprised of a methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD) attached to one fragment of split luciferase for localizing the sensor to DNA (50-80% of the CpG dinucleotide sites in the genome are symmetrically methylated at cytosines), while a damage-recognition domain is attached to the complementary fragment of luciferase to probe adjacent nucleotides for lesions. Specifically, we utilized oxoguanine glycosylase 1 (OGG1) to detect 8-oxoguanine caused by exposure to reactive oxygen species and employed the damaged-DNA binding protein 2 (DDB2) for detection of pyrimidine dimer photoproducts induced by UVC light. These two sensors were optimized and validated using oligonucleotides, plasmids, and mammalian genomic DNA, as well as HeLa cells that were systematically exposed to a variety of environmental insults, demonstrating that this methodology utilizing MBD-directed DNA localization provides a simple, sensitive, and potentially general approach for the rapid profiling of specific chemical modifications associated with DNA damage and repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.