Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23725800›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2013

The balancing act of DNA repeat expansions.

Jane C Kim, Sergei M Mirkin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

79 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Emerging drivers of DNA repeat expansions.Biochemical Society transactions · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Genome-Wide Microsatellites inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Revisiting mutagenesis at non-B DNA motifs in the human genome.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jane C KimDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, United States.
Sergei M Mirkin

Funding

Training in Education and Critical Research SkillsK12GM074869 · NIGMS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI MOORE, CLAIRE L · 2006 to 2017
$8.5M
REPLICATION OF SIMPLE DNA REPEATSR01GM060987 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI MIRKIN, SERGEI · 2001 to 2017
$4.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM60987NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM074869NIGMS NIH HHS K12GM074869NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM060987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expansions of microsatellite DNA repeats contribute to the inheritance of nearly 30 developmental and neurological disorders. Significant progress has been made in elucidating the molecular mechanisms of repeat expansions using various model organisms and mammalian cell culture, and models implicating nearly all DNA transactions such as replication, repair, recombination, and transcription have been proposed. It is likely that different models of repeat expansions are not mutually exclusive and may explain repeat instability for different developmental stages and tissues. This review focuses on the contributions from studies in budding yeast toward unraveling the mechanisms and genetic control of repeat expansions, highlighting similarities and differences of replication models and describing a balancing act hypothesis to account for apparent discrepancies.

Indexed as

DNADNA RepairDNA Repeat ExpansionDNA ReplicationGenetic Diseases, InbornGenome, HumanHumansRecombination, GeneticDNA

Identifiers

PMID23725800
PMCPMC3703482

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.