ArticleInternational journal of molecular medicine2017
DNA damage response defect in Williams-Beuren syndrome.
Article in International journal of molecular medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative Proteomic Analysis Implicates Inhibition of Intracellular Protein Trafficking in Therapy-Induced Migrastasis in Prostate Cancer.Proteomes · 2026Article
- RFC2 promotes aerobic glycolysis and progression of colorectal cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Williams-Beuren Syndrome as a Potential Risk Factor for Burkitt Lymphoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Williams-Beuren syndrome (WBS, no. OMIM 194050) is a rare multisystem genetic disorder caused by a microdeletion on chromosome 7q11.23 and characterized by cardiovascular malformations, mental retardation, and a specific facial dysmorphism. Recently, we reported that a series of non‑Hodgkin's lymphoma occurs in children with WBS and thus hypothesized that a predisposition to cancer may be associated with this genetic disorder. The aim of the present study was to ascertain the role played by three genes hemizygously deleted in WBS (RFC2, GTF2I and BAZ1B) in DNA damage response pathways. Cell proliferation, cell cycle analysis, γ‑H2A.X induction, and expression of DNA damage response proteins were investigated upon exposure to genotoxic treatments in WBS patient‑derived primary fibroblasts and in the 293T cell line treated with specific siRNAs targeting RFC2, GTF2I and BAZ1B. An impaired hydroxyurea‑induced phosphorylation of CHK1 was observed in the WBS cells. However, this defective DNA damage response was not associated with an increased sensitivity to genotoxic agents. In addition, depletion of RFC2, GTF2I and BAZ1B using specific siRNAs did not have a significant impact on the DNA damage response in 293T cells. Our results highlight that the ATR‑dependent DNA damage response is impaired in WBS patient cells but is also dispensable for viability when these cells undergo a genotoxic stress. The mechanism by which the ATR pathway is impaired in WBS warrants elucidation through further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.