Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23912235›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2013

Mechanisms of radiation toxicity in transformed and non-transformed cells.

Ronald-Allan M Panganiban, Andrew L Snow, Regina M Day

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025
    Article
  6. Decoding the mechanisms behind second primary cancers.Journal of translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Enhancing survival after ionizing radiation exposure through mitigation of pyroptosis.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Protective effects of an aqueous extract ofFood science & nutrition · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Ronald-Allan M PanganibanDepartment of Pharmacology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814-4799, USA. ronald-allan.panganiban@usuhs.edu
Andrew L Snow
Regina M Day

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation damage to biological systems is determined by the type of radiation, the total dosage of exposure, the dose rate, and the region of the body exposed. Three modes of cell death-necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy-as well as accelerated senescence have been demonstrated to occur in vitro and in vivo in response to radiation in cancer cells as well as in normal cells. The basis for cellular selection for each mode depends on various factors including the specific cell type involved, the dose of radiation absorbed by the cell, and whether it is proliferating and/or transformed. Here we review the signaling mechanisms activated by radiation for the induction of toxicity in transformed and normal cells. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of radiation toxicity is critical for the development of radiation countermeasures as well as for the improvement of clinical radiation in cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Radiation, IonizingApoptosisAutophagyCell Line, TransformedCellular SenescenceHumansNecrosisNeoplasmsRadiation ToleranceSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID23912235
PMCPMC3759894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.