Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22935563›Full record

ArticleAutophagy2012

Macroautophagy-aided elimination of chromatin: sorting of waste, sorting of fate?

Jekaterina Erenpreisa, Anda Huna, Kristine Salmina, Thomas R Jackson, Mark S Cragg

Open access · hybridAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Autophagy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Origin and Fate of Micronuclei on the Road to Chromoanagenesis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jekaterina ErenpreisaLatvian Biomedicine Research and Study Centre, Riga, Latvia. katrina@biomed.lu.lv
Anda Huna
Kristine Salmina
Thomas R Jackson
Mark S Cragg
Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Centre · LVSouthampton General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How tumor cells process damaged or unwanted DNA is a matter of much interest. Recently, Rello-Varona et al. (Cell Cycle 2012; 11:170–76) reported the involvement of macroautophagy (hereon autophagy) in the elimination of micronuclei (MN) from osteosarcoma cells. Prior to that, diminution of whole nuclei from multinucleated TP53-mutant tumor cells was described. Here, we discuss these two kinds of chromatin autophagy evoked after genotoxic stress in the context of the various biological processes involved: (1) endopolyploidy and the ploidy cycle; (2) the timing of DNA synthesis; (3) DNA repair; (4) chromatin:nuclear envelope interactions; and (5) cytoplasmic autophagy. We suggest that whereas some MN can be reunited with the main nucleus (through interactions with envelope-limited chromatin sheets) and participate in DNA repair, failure of repair serves as a signal for the chromatin autophagy of MN. In turn, autophagy of whole sub-nuclei in multi-nucleated cells appears to favor de-polyploidization, mitigation of aneuploidy with its adverse effects, thereby promoting the survival fitness of descendents and treatment resistance. Thus, both kinds of chromatin autophagy provide tumor cells with the opportunity to repair DNA, sort and resort chromatin, reduce DNA content, and enhance survival.

Indexed as

AutophagyCell NucleusHumans

Identifiers

PMID22935563
PMCPMC3541312
OpenAlexW2019315570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.