Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22749140›Full record

ReviewProgress in molecular biology and translational science2012

Dynamics of lesion processing by bacterial nucleotide excision repair proteins.

Neil M Kad, Bennett Van Houten

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in molecular biology and translational science, 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
5.3field-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, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Peek Inside the Machines of Bacterial Nucleotide Excision Repair.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Optical Control of DNA Helicase Function through Genetic Code Expansion.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2017
    Article
  16. Transcription-coupled repair: an update.Archives of toxicology · 2016
    Review
  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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Neil M KadDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, United Kingdom.
Bennett Van Houten
University of Essex · GBUPMC Hillman Cancer Center · US

Funding

DNA damage recognition by nucleotide excision repair proteinsR01ES019566 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI VAN HOUTEN, BENNETT · 2011 to 2020
$3.9M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES019566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-molecule approaches permit an unrivalled view of how complex systems operate and have recently been used to understand DNA-protein interactions. These tools have enabled advances in a particularly challenging problem, the search for damaged sites on DNA. DNA repair proteins are present at the level of just a few hundred copies in bacterial cells to just a few thousand in human cells, and they scan the entire genome in search of their specific substrates. How do these proteins achieve this herculean task when their targets may differ from undamaged DNA by only a single hydrogen bond? Here we examine, using single-molecule approaches, how the prokaryotic nucleotide excision repair system balances the necessity for speed against specificity. We discuss issues at a theoretical, biological, and technical level and finally pose questions for future research.

Indexed as

Bacterial ProteinsDNA, BacterialDNA DamageDNA RepairHumansModels, BiologicalBacterial ProteinsDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID22749140
PMCPMC3858837
OpenAlexW1782776757

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.