Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22955377›Full record

ArticleCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2012

What mechanisms/processes underlie radiation-induced genomic instability?

Andrei V Karotki, Keith Baverstock

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Andrei V KarotkiRadiation Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Keith Baverstock
Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer · FRFinland University · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation-induced genomic instability is a modification of the cell genome found in the progeny of irradiated somatic and germ cells but that is not confined on the initial radiation-induced damage and may occur de novo many generations after irradiation. Genomic instability in the germ line does not follow Mendelian segregation and may have unpredictable outcomes in every succeeding generation. This phenomenon, for which there is extensive experimental data and some evidence in human populations exposed to ionising radiation, is not taken into account in health risk assessments. It poses an unknown morbidity/mortality burden. Based on experimental data derived over the last 20 years (up to January 2012) six mechanistic explanations for the phenomenon have been proposed in the peer-reviewed literature. This article compares these hypotheses with the empirical data to test their fitness to explain the phenomenon. As a conclusion, the most convincing explanation of radiation-induced genomic instability attributes it to an irreversible regulatory change in the dynamic interaction network of the cellular gene products, as a response to non-specific molecular damage, thus entailing the rejection of the machine metaphor for the cell in favour of one appropriate to a complex dissipative dynamic system, such as a whirlpool. It is concluded that in order to evaluate the likely morbidity/mortality associated with radiation-induced genomic instability, it will be necessary to study the damage to processes by radiation rather than damage to molecules.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA DamageGenomic InstabilityHumansRadiation Injuries

Identifiers

PMID22955377
PMCPMC11115179
OpenAlexW2019573022

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.