ArticleFEBS open bio2017
Cloning of canine Ku80 and its localization and accumulation at DNA damage sites.
Article in FEBS open bio, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined ataxia telangiectasia mutated and DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibition radiosensitizes Madin-Darby canine kidney cells.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2022Article
- Characterization of Double-Strand Break Repair Protein Ku80 Location Within the Murine Retina.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
- Inhibition of Crandell-Rees Feline Kidney cell proliferation by X-ray-induced senescence.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2021Article
- The Ku complex: recent advances and emerging roles outside of non-homologous end-joining.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Review
- The Role of Ku70 as a Cytosolic DNA Sensor in Innate Immunity and Beyond.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
- Feline XLF accumulates at DNA damage sites in a Ku-dependent manner.FEBS open bio · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecularly targeted therapies have high specificity and significant cancer-killing effect. However, their antitumor effect might be greatly diminished by variation in even a single amino acid in the target site, as it occurs, for example, as a consequence of SNPs. Increasing evidence suggests that the DNA repair protein Ku80 is an attractive target molecule for the development of next-generation radiosensitizers for human cancers. However, the localization, post-translational modifications (PTMs), and complex formation of Ku80 have not been elucidated in canines. In this study, for the first time, we cloned, sequenced, and characterized canine Ku80 cDNA. Our data show that canine Ku80 localizes in the nuclei of interphase cells and is quickly recruited at laser-induced double-strand break sites. Comparative analysis shows that canine Ku80 had only 82.3% amino acid identity with the homologous human protein, while the nuclear localization signal (NLS) in human and canine Ku80 is evolutionarily conserved. Notably, some predicted PTM sites, including one acetylation site and one sumoylation site within the NLS, are conserved in the two species. These findings suggest that the spatial and temporal regulation of Ku80 might be conserved in humans and canines. However, our data indicate that the expression of Ku80 is considerably lower in the canine cell lines examined than in human cell lines. These important findings might be useful to better understand the mechanism of the Ku80-dependent DNA repair and for the development of potential next-generation radiosensitizers targeting common targets in human and canine cancers.
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.