ReviewDNA repair2018
Imaging cellular responses to antigen tagged DNA damage.
Review in DNA repair, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repair of genomic interstrand crosslinks.DNA repair · 2024Review
- DNA damage responses that enhance resilience to replication stress.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Review
- RNF168 E3 ligase participates in ubiquitin signaling and recruitment of SLX4 during DNA crosslink repair.Cell reports · 2021Article
- Replication-Coupled DNA Repair.Molecular cell · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Repair pathways of covalent DNA damage are understood in considerable detail due to decades of brilliant biochemical studies by many investigators. An important feature of these experiments is the defined adduct location on oligonucleotide or plasmid substrates that are incubated with purified proteins or cell free extracts. With some exceptions, this certainty is lost when the inquiry shifts to the response of living mammalian cells to the same adducts in genomic DNA. This reflects the limitation of assays, such as those based on immunofluorescence, that are widely used to follow responding proteins in cells exposed to a DNA reactive compound. The lack of effective reagents for adduct detection means that the proximity between responding proteins and an adduct must be assumed. Since these assumptions can be incorrect, models based on in vitro systems may fail to account for observations made in vivo. Here we discuss the use of a detection tag to address the problem of lesion location, as illustrated by our recent work on replication dependent and independent responses to interstrand crosslinks.
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.