ReviewCancer letters2013
The analysis of DNA adducts: the transition from (32)P-postlabeling to mass spectrometry.
Review in Cancer letters, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-enhanced surface-enhanced spectroscopic detection of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the human placenta.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- A sensitive GC-MS/MS method for the quantification of benzo[a]pyrene tetrol in urine.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Mass spectrometric profiling of DNA adducts in the human stomach associated with damage from environmental factors.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2021Article
- The Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Relationship to the Hallmarks of Cancer, Relevant Biomarkers, and Assays to Measure Them.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Genotoxicity of root canal sealers: a literature review.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Review
- DNA adducts: Formation, biological effects, and new biospecimens for mass spectrometric measurements in humans.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2020Review
- Article
- Methods and Challenges for Computational Data Analysis for DNA Adductomics.Chemical research in toxicology · 2019Article
- Targeted High Resolution LC/MSFrontiers in chemistry · 2019Article
- Review
- Differential Mobility Spectrometry-Mass Spectrometry (DMS-MS) in Radiation Biodosimetry: Rapid and High-Throughput Quantitation of Multiple Radiation Biomarkers in Nonhuman Primate Urine.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2018Article
- Recent technical and biological development in the analysis of biomarker N-deoxyguanosine-C8-4-aminobiphenyl.Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences · 2018Review
- Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissues-An Untapped Biospecimen for Biomonitoring DNA Adducts by Mass Spectrometry.Toxics · 2018Review
- Ultrasensitive High-Resolution Mass Spectrometric Analysis of a DNA Adduct of the Carcinogen Benzo[a]pyrene in Human Lung.Analytical chemistry · 2017Article
- Data-Independent Mass Spectrometry Approach for Screening and Identification of DNA Adducts.Analytical chemistry · 2017Article
- Aptamers for DNA Damage and Repair.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- The Future of DNA Adductomic Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
- Human Biomonitoring of DNA Adducts by Ion Trap Multistage Mass Spectrometry.Current protocols in nucleic acid chemistry · 2016Article
- Tracking matrix effects in the analysis of DNA adducts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.Journal of chromatography. A · 2016Article
- Mass spectrometry for the assessment of the occurrence and biological consequences of DNA adducts.Chemical Society reviews · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The technique of (32)P-postlabeling, which was introduced in 1982 for the analysis of DNA adducts, has long been the method of choice for in vivo studies because of its high sensitivity as it requires only <10μg DNA to achieve the detection of 1 adduct in 10(10) normal bases. (32)P-postlabeling has therefore been utilized in numerous human and animal studies of DNA adduct formation. Like all techniques (32)P-postlabeling does have several disadvantages including the use of radioactive phosphorus, lack of internal standards, and perhaps most significantly does not provide any structural information for positive identification of unknown adducts, a shortcoming that could significantly hamper progress in the field. Structural methods have since been developed to allow for positive identification of DNA adducts, but to this day, the same level of sensitivity and low sample requirements provided by (32)P-postlabeling have not been matched. In this mini review we will discuss the (32)P-postlabeling method and chronicle the transition to mass spectrometry via the hyphenation of gas chromatography, capillary electrophoresis, and ultimately liquid chromatography which, some 30years later, is only just starting to approach the sensitivity and low sample requirements of (32)P-postlabeling. This paper focuses on the detection of bulky carcinogen-DNA adducts, with no mention of oxidative damage or small alkylating agents. This is because the (32)P-postlabeling assay is most compatible with bulky DNA adducts. This will also allow a more comprehensive focus on a subject that has been our particular interest since 1990.
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.