Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26529031›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2015

The RNA Splicing Response to DNA Damage.

Lulzim Shkreta, Benoit Chabot

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomolecules, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. RNA splicing in health and disease.Molecular biomedicine · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Editorial: The RNA revolution and cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 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.

Lulzim ShkretaMicrobiologie et d'Infectiologie, Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1E 4K8, Canada. lulzim.shkreta@usherbrooke.ca.
Benoit ChabotMicrobiologie et d'Infectiologie, Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1E 4K8, Canada. benoit.chabot@usherbrooke.ca.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of factors known to participate in the DNA damage response (DDR) has expanded considerably in recent years to include splicing and alternative splicing factors. While the binding of splicing proteins and ribonucleoprotein complexes to nascent transcripts prevents genomic instability by deterring the formation of RNA/DNA duplexes, splicing factors are also recruited to, or removed from, sites of DNA damage. The first steps of the DDR promote the post-translational modification of splicing factors to affect their localization and activity, while more downstream DDR events alter their expression. Although descriptions of molecular mechanisms remain limited, an emerging trend is that DNA damage disrupts the coupling of constitutive and alternative splicing with the transcription of genes involved in DNA repair, cell-cycle control and apoptosis. A better understanding of how changes in splice site selection are integrated into the DDR may provide new avenues to combat cancer and delay aging.

Indexed as

DNA DamageRNA SplicingAnimalsHumansProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalRNA-Binding ProteinsRNA-Binding Proteinsalternative splicingchromatinDNA damage responsepre-mRNAR-loopsRNA binding proteinssignal transductionsplice site selectionsplicing factorstranscription

Identifiers

PMID26529031
PMCPMC4693264

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.