Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25202323›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2014

Comet assay to measure DNA repair: approach and applications.

Amaya Azqueta, Jana Slyskova, Sabine A S Langie, Isabel O'Neill Gaivão, Andrew Collins

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 167 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Standards for Quantitative Measurement of DNA Damage in Mammalian Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Expert reviews in molecular medicine · 2022
    Review

6 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Amaya AzquetaDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Navarra Pamplona, Spain.
Jana SlyskovaDepartment of Molecular Biology of Cancer, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Science of the Czech Republic Prague, Czech Republic.
Sabine A S LangieEnvironmental Risk and Health Unit, Flemish Institute of Technological Research Mol, Belgium.
Isabel O'Neill GaivãoDepartment of Genetics and Biotechnology, Animal and Veterinary Research Centre, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro Vila Real, Portugal.
Andrew CollinsDepartment of Nutrition, University of Oslo Oslo, Norway.
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Experimental Medicine · CZFlemish Institute for Technological Research · BEUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellular repair enzymes remove virtually all DNA damage before it is fixed; repair therefore plays a crucial role in preventing cancer. Repair studied at the level of transcription correlates poorly with enzyme activity, and so assays of phenotype are needed. In a biochemical approach, substrate nucleoids containing specific DNA lesions are incubated with cell extract; repair enzymes in the extract induce breaks at damage sites; and the breaks are measured with the comet assay. The nature of the substrate lesions defines the repair pathway to be studied. This in vitro DNA repair assay has been modified for use in animal tissues, specifically to study the effects of aging and nutritional intervention on repair. Recently, the assay was applied to different strains of Drosophila melanogaster proficient and deficient in DNA repair. Most applications of the repair assay have been in human biomonitoring. Individual DNA repair activity may be a marker of cancer susceptibility; alternatively, high repair activity may result from induction of repair enzymes by exposure to DNA-damaging agents. Studies to date have examined effects of environment, nutrition, lifestyle, and occupation, in addition to clinical investigations.

Indexed as

animal studiesbase excision repair (BER)clinical studiescomet assayDNA repairhuman biomonitoringnucleotide excision repair (NER)occupational studies

Identifiers

PMID25202323
PMCPMC4142706
OpenAlexW2086929044

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.