Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25578955›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2015

The BER necessities: the repair of DNA damage in human-adapted bacterial pathogens.

Stijn van der Veen, Christoph M Tang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Base excision repair inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Acridine Derivatives as Antifungal and Antivirulence Agents AgainstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. An interstrand DNA crosslink glycosylase aidsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Bacterial DNA excision repair pathways.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2022
    Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Stijn van der VeenSir William Dunn School of Pathology, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3RE, UK.
Christoph M TangSir William Dunn School of Pathology, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3RE, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900888Wellcome Trust 102908Wellcome Trust 102908/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During colonization and disease, bacterial pathogens must survive the onslaught of the host immune system. A key component of the innate immune response is the generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species by phagocytic cells, which target and disrupt pathogen molecules, particularly DNA, and the base excision repair (BER) pathway is the most important mechanism for the repair of such oxidative DNA damage. In this Review, we discuss how the human-specific pathogens Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Helicobacter pylori and Neisseria meningitidis have evolved specialized mechanisms of DNA repair, particularly their BER pathways, compared with model organisms such as Escherichia coli. This specialization in DNA repair is likely to reflect the distinct niches occupied by these important human pathogens in the host.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairBacteriaBacterial InfectionsDNA, BacterialHumansImmunity, InnateDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID25578955

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.