Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30258457›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2018

Processing of DNA Ends in the Maintenance of Genome Stability.

Diego Bonetti, Chiara Vittoria Colombo, Michela Clerici, Maria Pia Longhese

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A comparative evaluation of CRISPR-Cas9 allele editing systems inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Dynamic Properties of the DNA Damage Response Mre11/Rad50 Complex.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. CtIP promotes the motor activity of DNA2 to accelerate long-range DNA end resection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Diego BonettiDipartimento di Biotecnologie e Bioscienze, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Chiara Vittoria ColomboDipartimento di Biotecnologie e Bioscienze, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Michela ClericiDipartimento di Biotecnologie e Bioscienze, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Maria Pia LongheseDipartimento di Biotecnologie e Bioscienze, Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are particularly hazardous lesions as their inappropriate repair can result in chromosome rearrangements, an important driving force of tumorigenesis. DSBs can be repaired by end joining mechanisms or by homologous recombination (HR). HR requires the action of several nucleases that preferentially remove the 5'-terminated strands at both DSB ends in a process called DNA end resection. The same nucleases are also involved in the processing of replication fork structures. Much of our understanding of these pathways has come from studies in the model organism

Indexed as

checkpointDNA replicationdouble-strand breakMRXnucleasesresection

Identifiers

PMID30258457
PMCPMC6143663

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.