ReviewMolecular oncology2012
Maintenance of genomic integrity after DNA double strand breaks in the human prostate and seminal vesicle epithelium: the best and the worst.
Review in Molecular oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediagnosis aspirin use, DNA methylation, and mortality after breast cancer: A population-based study.Cancer · 2019Article
- DNA Damage Response in Prostate Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2019Review
- Evolution: Back to the future to understand and control prostate cancer.Asian journal of urology · 2014Article
- Maintenance of genomic integrity after DNA double strand breaks in the human prostate and seminal vesicle epithelium: the best and the worst.Molecular oncology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Prostate cancer is one of the most frequent cancer types in men, and its incidence is steadily increasing. On the other hand, primary seminal vesicle carcinomas are extremely rare with less than 60 cases reported worldwide. Therefore the difference in cancer incidence has been estimated to be more than a 100,000-fold. This is astonishing, as both tissues share similar epithelial structure and hormonal cues. Clearly, the two epithelia differ substantially in the maintenance of genomic integrity, possibly due to inherent differences in their DNA damage burden and DNA damage signaling. The DNA damage response evoked by DNA double strand breaks may be relevant, as their faulty repair has been implicated in the formation of common genomic rearrangements such as TMPRSS2-ERG fusions during prostate carcinogenesis. Here, we review DNA damaging processes of both tissues with an emphasis on inflammation and androgen signaling. We discuss how benign prostate and seminal vesicle epithelia respond to acute DNA damage, focusing on the canonical DNA double strand break-induced ATM-pathway, p53 and DNA damage induced checkpoints. We propose that the prostate might be more prone to the accumulation of genetic aberrations during epithelial regeneration than seminal vesicles due to a weaker ability to enforce DNA damage checkpoints.
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.