Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26791985›Full record

ArticleMethods in enzymology2016

Production, Purification, and Characterization of ¹⁵N-Labeled DNA Repair Proteins as Internal Standards for Mass Spectrometric Measurements.

Prasad T Reddy, Pawel Jaruga, Bryant C Nelson, Mark S Lowenthal, Ann-Sofie Jemth, Olga Loseva, Erdem Coskun, Thomas Helleday, Miral Dizdaroglu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in enzymology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Prasad T ReddyInstitute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Maryland, Rockville, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: prasad.reddy@nist.gov.
Pawel JarugaBiochemical Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Bryant C NelsonBiosystems and Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Mark S LowenthalBiochemical Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Ann-Sofie JemthScience for Life Laboratory, Division of Translational Medicine and Chemical Biology, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olga LosevaScience for Life Laboratory, Division of Translational Medicine and Chemical Biology, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erdem CoskunBiochemical Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Thomas HelledayScience for Life Laboratory, Division of Translational Medicine and Chemical Biology, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Miral DizdarogluBiochemical Measurement Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: miral@nist.gov.
National Institute of Standards and Technology · USScience for Life Laboratory · SEMaterial Measurement Laboratory · US

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oxidatively induced DNA damage is caused in living organisms by a variety of damaging agents, resulting in the formation of a multiplicity of lesions, which are mutagenic and cytotoxic. Unless repaired by DNA repair mechanisms before DNA replication, DNA lesions can lead to genomic instability, which is one of the hallmarks of cancer. Oxidatively induced DNA damage is mainly repaired by base excision repair pathway with the involvement of a plethora of proteins. Cancer tissues develop greater DNA repair capacity than normal tissues by overexpressing DNA repair proteins. Increased DNA repair in tumors that removes DNA lesions generated by therapeutic agents before they became toxic is a major mechanism in the development of therapy resistance. Evidence suggests that DNA repair capacity may be a predictive biomarker of patient response. Thus, knowledge of DNA-protein expressions in disease-free and cancerous tissues may help predict and guide development of treatments and yield the best therapeutic response. Our laboratory has developed methodologies that use mass spectrometry with isotope dilution for the measurement of expression of DNA repair proteins in human tissues and cultured cells. For this purpose, full-length (15)N-labeled analogs of a number of human DNA repair proteins have been produced and purified to be used as internal standards for positive identification and accurate quantification. This chapter describes in detail the protocols of this work. The use of (15)N-labeled proteins as internal standards for the measurement of several DNA repair proteins in vivo is also presented.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairHumansMass SpectrometryNitrogen IsotopesProteinsStaining and LabelingNitrogen IsotopesProteins(15)N-labeled proteinsDNA damageDNA repairDNA repair proteinsMass spectrometryProtein measurements

Identifiers

PMID26791985
PMCPMC4888786
OpenAlexW2468927704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.