Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21524151›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology2011

Understanding the limitations of radiation-induced cell cycle checkpoints.

Dorothee Deckbar, Penny A Jeggo, Markus Löbrich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Synergistic Effects of DNA-PKcs Inhibition and Radiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. In Situ ThaiPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cytotoxicity ofEJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

42 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

3 authors.

Dorothee DeckbarDarmstadt University of Technology, Radiation Biology and DNA Repair, Darmstadt, Germany.
Penny A Jeggo
Markus Löbrich

Funding

Department of Health RRX116Medical Research Council 0500897Medical Research Council G0500897Wellcome Trust 6642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The DNA damage response pathways involve processes of double-strand break (DSB) repair and cell cycle checkpoint control to prevent or limit entry into S phase or mitosis in the presence of unrepaired damage. Checkpoints can function to permanently remove damaged cells from the actively proliferating population but can also halt the cell cycle temporarily to provide time for the repair of DSBs. Although efficient in their ability to limit genomic instability, checkpoints are not foolproof but carry inherent limitations. Recent work has demonstrated that the G1/S checkpoint is slowly activated and allows cells to enter S phase in the presence of unrepaired DSBs for about 4-6 h post irradiation. During this time, only a slowing but not abolition of S-phase entry is observed. The G2/M checkpoint, in contrast, is quickly activated but only responds to a level of 10-20 DSBs such that cells with a low number of DSBs do not initiate the checkpoint or terminate arrest before repair is complete. Here, we discuss the limitations of these checkpoints in the context of the current knowledge of the factors involved. We suggest that the time needed to fully activate G1/S arrest reflects the existence of a restriction point in G1-phase progression. This point has previously been defined as the point when mitogen starvation fails to prevent cells from entering S phase. However, cells that passed the restriction point can respond to DSBs, albeit with reduced efficiency.

Indexed as

DNA RepairGenes, cdcCell CycleChromatinChromosomal InstabilityChromosome BreakageCyclin-Dependent KinasesCyclinsDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA ReplicationEnzyme ActivationGene Expression RegulationMitogensPhosphorylationS PhaseChromatinCyclin-Dependent KinasesCyclinsMitogens

Identifiers

PMID21524151
PMCPMC3171706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.