Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24951587›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2014

Excision of uracil from transcribed DNA negatively affects gene expression.

Bork Lühnsdorf, Bernd Epe, Andriy Khobta

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Direct and Base Excision Repair-Mediated Regulation of a GC-RichInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Metabolic profiling of umbilical cord blood in macrosomia.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bork LühnsdorfFrom the Institute of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Staudingerweg 5, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Bernd EpeFrom the Institute of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Staudingerweg 5, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Andriy KhobtaFrom the Institute of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Staudingerweg 5, 55128 Mainz, Germany khobta@uni-mainz.de.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uracil is an unavoidable aberrant base in DNA, the repair of which takes place by a highly efficient base excision repair mechanism. The removal of uracil from the genome requires a succession of intermediate products, including an abasic site and a single strand break, before the original DNA structure can be reconstituted. These repair intermediates are harmful for DNA replication and also interfere with transcription under cell-free conditions. However, their relevance for cellular transcription has not been proved. Here we investigated the influence of uracil incorporated into a reporter vector on gene expression in human cells. The expression constructs contained a single uracil opposite an adenine (to mimic dUTP misincorporation during DNA synthesis) or a guanine (imitating a product of spontaneous cytosine deamination). We found no evidence for a direct transcription arrest by uracil in either of the two settings because the vectors containing the base modification exhibited unaltered levels of enhanced GFP reporter gene expression at early times after delivery to cells. However, the gene expression showed a progressive decline during subsequent hours. In the case of U:A pairs, this effect was retarded significantly by knockdown of UNG1/2 but not by knockdown of SMUG1 or thymine-DNA glycosylase uracil-DNA glycosylases, proving that it is base excision by UNG1/2 that perturbs transcription of the affected gene. By contrast, the decline of expression of the U:G constructs was not influenced by either UNG1/2, SMUG1, or thymine-DNA glycosylase knockdown, strongly suggesting that there are substantial mechanistic or kinetic differences between the processing of U:A and U:G lesions in cells.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionCell LineDNADNA GlycosylasesDNA RepairGene Knockdown TechniquesGenes, ReporterGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHeLa CellsHumansThymine DNA GlycosylaseTranscription, GeneticUracilUracil-DNA GlycosidaseCCNO protein, humanDNADNA Glycosylasesenhanced green fluorescent proteinGreen Fluorescent ProteinsSMUG1 protein, humanThymine DNA GlycosylaseUracilUracil-DNA GlycosidaseBase Excision Repair (BER)DNA Damage ResponseDNA RepairFlow CytometryGene TranscriptionReporter GeneTransfectionUracil-DNA GlycosylaseUracil in DNA

Identifiers

PMID24951587
PMCPMC4139217
OpenAlexW2031260933

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.