ArticleDNA repair2018
Fluorescent fusions of the N protein of phage Mu label DNA damage in living cells.
Article 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA Double Strand Break and Response Fluorescent Assays: Choices and Interpretation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Two mechanisms of chromosome fragility at replication-termination sites in bacteria.Science advances · 2021Article
- Genomic mapping of DNA-repair reaction intermediates in living cells with engineered DNA structure-trap proteins.Methods in enzymology · 2021Article
- Bacterial Vivisection: How Fluorescence-Based Imaging Techniques Shed a Light on the Inner Workings of Bacteria.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The N protein of phage Mu was indicated from studies in Escherichia coli to hold linear Mu chromosomes in a circular conformation by non-covalent association, and thus suggested potentially to bind DNA double-stranded ends. Because of its role in association with linear Mu DNA, we tested whether fluorescent-protein fusions to N might provide a useful tool for labeling DNA damage including double-strand break (DSB) ends in single cells. We compared N-GFP with a biochemically well documented DSB-end binding protein, the Gam protein of phage Mu, also fused to GFP. We find that N-GFP produced in live E. coli forms foci in response to DNA damage induced by radiomimetic drug phleomycin, indicating that it labels damaged DNA. N-GFP also labels specific DSBs created enzymatically by I-SceI double-strand endonuclease, and by X-rays, with the numbers of foci corresponding with the numbers of DSBs generated, indicating DSB labeling. However, whereas N-GFP forms about half as many foci as GamGFP with phleomycin, its labeling of I-SceI- and X-ray-induced DSBs is far less efficient than that of GamGFP. The data imply that N-GFP binds and labels DNA damage including DSBs, but may additionally label phleomycin-induced non-DSB damage, with which DSB-specific GamGFP does not interact. The data indicate that N-GFP labels DNA damage, and may be useful for general, not DSB-specific, DNA-damage detection.
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.