ArticleOncotarget2017
Profiling of ribonucleotides and deoxyribonucleotides pools in response to DNA damage and repair induced by methyl methanesulfonate in cancer and normal cells.
Article in Oncotarget, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functionalized Carbon Dots With Intrinsic Wnt/International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Article
- Metabolomics reveals synergy between Ag and g-CMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2021Article
- Protective Effect of Thymidine on DNA Damage Induced by Hydrogen Peroxide in Human Hepatocellular Cancer Cells.ACS omega · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absolute and relative pool sizes of deoxyribonucleotides (dRNs) are essential in DNA replication fidelity, DNA damage and repair. We found in this study that although DNA damage induced by methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) seemed similar in cancer (HepG2) and normal (LO2) cells, more extensive alterations in ribonucleotides (RNs) and dRNs pools occurred in HepG2 cells indicating that HepG2 cells were more vigilant to DNA damage. After 10 h repair, RNs pools were still severely perturbed in LO2 cells. Compared to LO2 cells, deoxyribonucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs) pools in HepG2 cells elevated by more folds which could facilitate more efficient DNA repair and improve survival probability following DNA damage, although this should definitely lead to higher mutation rates. DNA repair was more efficient in HepG2 cells at S phase and it partly came to an end while DNA repair was still uncompleted in LO2 cells outside S phase. In conclusion, our results demonstrated that HepG2 and LO2 cells presented many differences in nucleotide metabolism, cell cycle checkpoints and DNA repair pathways in response to DNA damage, which could be potential targets for cancer treatment.
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.