Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28847818›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017

SUMO, a small, but powerful, regulator of double-strand break repair.

Alexander J Garvin, Joanna R Morris

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Solo or in Concert: SUMOylation in Pathogenic Fungi.The plant pathology journal · 2025
    Review
  9. SUMO and the DNA damage response.Biochemical Society transactions · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Alexander J GarvinBirmingham Centre for Genome Biology and Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Medical and Dental School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Joanna R MorrisBirmingham Centre for Genome Biology and Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Medical and Dental School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK j.morris.3@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9762-8133
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The response to a DNA double-stranded break in mammalian cells is a process of sensing and signalling the lesion. It results in halting the cell cycle and local transcription and in the mediation of the DNA repair process itself. The response is launched through a series of post-translational modification signalling events coordinated by phosphorylation and ubiquitination. More recently modifications of proteins by

Indexed as

DNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA RepairSumoylationAnimalsHumansMammalsSmall Ubiquitin-Related Modifier ProteinsSmall Ubiquitin-Related Modifier Proteinsdouble-strand break repairSUMOSUMO proteaseubiquitin

Identifiers

PMID28847818
PMCPMC5577459
OpenAlexW2750409630

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.