Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31661831›Full record

ReviewCancers2019

Necessities in the Processing of DNA Double Strand Breaks and Their Effects on Genomic Instability and Cancer.

George Iliakis, Emil Mladenov, Veronika Mladenova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. High-LET charged particles: radiobiology and application for new approaches in radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

3 authors.

George IliakisInstitute of Medical Radiation Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen Medical School, 45122 Essen, Germany. georg.iliakis@uk-essen.de.
Emil MladenovInstitute of Medical Radiation Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen Medical School, 45122 Essen, Germany. emil.mladenov@uk-essen.de.
Veronika MladenovaInstitute of Medical Radiation Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen Medical School, 45122 Essen, Germany. veronika.mladenova@uk-essen.de.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 02NUK037B, VERCHROMT, 02NUK043B, COLLARBundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie ESA-AO-IBER-2017 and 50WB1836Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft IL-51/10, IL-51/11 and GRK1739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Double strand breaks (DSBs) are induced in the DNA following exposure of cells to ionizing radiation (IR) and are highly consequential for genome integrity, requiring highly specialized modes of processing. Erroneous processing of DSBs is a cause of cell death or its transformation to a cancer cell. Four mechanistically distinct pathways have evolved in cells of higher eukaryotes to process DSBs, providing thus multiple options for the damaged cells. The homologous recombination repair (HRR) dependent subway of gene conversion (GC) removes IR-induced DSBs from the genome in an error-free manner. Classical non-homologous end joining (c-NHEJ) removes DSBs with very high speed but is unable to restore the sequence at the generated junction and can catalyze the formation of translocations. Alternative end-joining (alt-EJ) operates on similar principles as c-NHEJ but is slower and more error-prone regarding both sequence preservation and translocation formation. Finally, single strand annealing (SSA) is associated with large deletions and may also form translocations. Thus, the four pathways available for the processing of DSBs are not alternative options producing equivalent outcomes. We discuss the rationale for the evolution of pathways with such divergent properties and fidelities and outline the logic and necessities that govern their engagement. We reason that cells are not free to choose one specific pathway for the processing of a DSB but rather that they engage a pathway by applying the logic of highest fidelity selection, adapted to necessities imposed by the character of the DSB being processed. We introduce DSB clusters as a particularly consequential form of chromatin breakage and review findings suggesting that this form of damage underpins the increased efficacy of high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation modalities. The concepts developed have implications for the protection of humans from radon-induced cancer, as well as the treatment of cancer with radiations of high LET.

Indexed as

alt-EJc-NHEJcomplex DSBsDNA repairdouble strand breaks (DSBs)gene conversion (GC)high LET radiationhomologous recombination repair (HRR)ionizing radiation (IR)single strand annealing (SSA)

Identifiers

PMID31661831
PMCPMC6896103

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.