Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28101326›Full record

ReviewCell & bioscience2017

Microhomology-mediated end joining: new players join the team.

Hailong Wang, Xingzhi Xu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell & bioscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. TALAVE in Breast Cancer:bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Helicase HELQ: Molecular Characters Fit for DSB Repair Function.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A perspective on tumor radiation resistance following high-LET radiation treatment.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024
    Review
  13. Targeted Gene Insertion: The Cutting Edge of CRISPR Drug Development with Hemophilia as a Highlight.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Comparison of CRISPR-MAD7 and CRISPR-Cas9 for Gene Disruptions inJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 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.

Hailong WangBeijing Key Laboratory of DNA Damage Response and College of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048 China.ORCID 0000-0003-3751-3283
Xingzhi XuBeijing Key Laboratory of DNA Damage Response and College of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048 China ; Shenzhen University School of Medicine, Shenzhen, 518060 Guangdong China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the most deleterious type of DNA damage in cells arising from endogenous and exogenous attacks on the genomic DNA. Timely and properly repair of DSBs is important for genomic integrity and survival. MMEJ is an error-prone repair mechanism for DSBs, which relies on exposed microhomologous sequence flanking broken junction to fix DSBs in a Ku- and ligase IV-independent manner. Recently, significant progress has been made in MMEJ mechanism study. In this review, we will summarize its biochemical activities of several newly identified MMEJ factors and their biological significance.

Indexed as

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs)End resectionMicrohomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ)PolθRPA

Identifiers

PMID28101326
PMCPMC5237343

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.