Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22362552›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of nutrition2012

Effects of micronutrients on DNA repair.

Andrew R Collins, Amaya Azqueta, Sabine A S Langie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of nutrition, 2012. 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
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Zinc: From Biological Functions to Therapeutic Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The comet assay: past, present, and future.Frontiers in genetics · 2015
    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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Andrew R CollinsDepartment of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Blindern, PB 1046, 0316, Oslo, Norway. a.r.collins@medisin.uio.no
Amaya Azqueta
Sabine A S Langie
Newcastle University · GBUniversidad de Navarra · ESUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA repair is an essential cellular function, which, by removing DNA damage before it can cause mutations, contributes crucially to the prevention of cancer. Interest in the influence of micronutrients on DNA repair activity is prompted by the possibility that the protective effects of fruits and vegetables might thus be explained. Two approaches to measuring repair-monitoring cellular removal of DNA damage and incubating cell extract with specifically damaged DNA in an in vitro assay-have been applied in cell culture, whole animal studies, and human trials. In addition, there are numerous investigations at the level of expression of DNA repair-related genes.

resultsDepending on the pathway studied and the phytochemical or food tested, there are varied reports of stimulation, inhibition or no effect on DNA repair. The clearest findings are from human supplementation trials in which lymphocytes are assessed for their repair capacity ex vivo. Studying cellular repair of strand breaks is complicated by the fact that lymphocytes appear to repair them very slowly. Applying the in vitro repair assay to human lymphocytes has revealed stimulatory effects on repair of oxidised bases by various micronutrients or a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet, while other studies have failed to demonstrate effects.

conclusionsDespite varied results from different studies, it seems clear that micronutrients can influence DNA repair, usually but not always enhancing activity. Different modes of DNA repair are likely to be subject to different regulatory mechanisms. Measures of gene expression tend to be a poor guide to repair activity, and there is no substitute for phenotypic assays.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntioxidantsCells, CulturedDietary SupplementsDNA RepairEpigenomicsFruitHumansLymphocytesMicronutrientsModels, AnimalVegetablesAntioxidantsMicronutrients

Identifiers

PMID22362552
OpenAlexW1987507657

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.