Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26951077›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2016

Differences in quantification of DNA double-strand breaks assessed by 53BP1/γH2AX focus formation assays and the comet assay in mammalian cells treated with irradiation and N-acetyl-L-cysteine.

Tomomi Kurashige, Mika Shimamura, Yuji Nagayama

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Ocular Cell Lines and Genotoxicity Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Tomomi KurashigeDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan.
Mika ShimamuraDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan.
Yuji NagayamaDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan nagayama@nagasaki-u.ac.jp.
Nagasaki University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biological effect of ionizing radiation (IR) on genomic DNA is thought to be either direct or indirect; the latter is mediated by IR induction of free radicals and reactive oxygen species (ROS). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), a well-known ROS-scavenging antioxidant, on IR induction of genotoxicity, cytotoxicity and ROS production in mammalian cells, and aimed to clarify the conflicting data in previous publications. Although we clearly demonstrate the beneficial effect of NAC on IR-induced genotoxicity and cytotoxicity (determined using the micronucleus assay and cell viability/clonogenic assays), the data on NAC's effect on DNA double-strand break (DSB) formation were inconsistent in different assays. Specifically, mitigation of IR-induced DSBs by NAC was readily detected by the neutral comet assay, but not by the γH2AX or 53BP1 focus assays. NAC is a glutathione precursor and exerts its effect after conversion to glutathione, and presumably it has its own biological activity. Assuming that the focus assay reflects the biological responses to DSBs (detection and repair), while the comet assay reflects the physical status of genomic DNA, our results indicate that the comet assay could readily detect the antioxidant effect of NAC on DSB formation. However, NAC's biological effect might affect the detection of DSB repair by the focus assays. Our data illustrate that multiple parameters should be carefully used to analyze DNA damage when studying potential candidates for radioprotective compounds.

Indexed as

DNA Breaks, Double-StrandedRadiation, IonizingAcetylcysteineAnimalsCell LineCell SurvivalComet AssayHistonesHumansMicronucleus TestsPhosphoproteinsRatsReactive Oxygen SpeciesTime FactorsTumor Suppressor p53-Binding Protein 1Acetylcysteinegamma-H2AX protein, ratHistonesPhosphoproteinsReactive Oxygen SpeciesTumor Suppressor p53-Binding Protein 153BP1comet assayDNA double-strand breaksradiationγH2AX

Identifiers

PMID26951077
PMCPMC4915540
OpenAlexW2299972976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.