Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31818467›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2020

Structural and Dynamical Signatures of Local DNA Damage in Live Cells.

Jonah A Eaton, Alexandra Zidovska

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Active processes shape and move the genome and nucleoplasm.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Transcription-induced active forces suppress chromatin motion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Technological advances in probing 4D genome organization.Current opinion in cell biology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonah A EatonCenter for Soft Matter Research, Department of Physics, New York University, New York, New York.
Alexandra ZidovskaCenter for Soft Matter Research, Department of Physics, New York University, New York, New York. Electronic address: alexandra.zidovska@nyu.edu.
New York University · US

Funding

Mechanism and Function of Chromatin Positional Dynamics in InterphaseR00GM104152 · NIGMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI ZIDOVSKA, ALEXANDRA · 2014 to 2016
$747k
NIGMS NIH HHS R00 GM104152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dynamic organization of chromatin inside the cell nucleus plays a key role in gene regulation and genome replication, as well as maintaining genome integrity. Although the static folded state of the genome has been extensively studied, dynamical signatures of processes such as transcription or DNA repair remain an open question. Here, we investigate the interphase chromatin dynamics in human cells in response to local DNA damage, specifically, DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). Using simultaneous two-color spinning-disk confocal microscopy, we monitor the DSB dynamics and the compaction of the surrounding chromatin, visualized by fluorescently labeled 53BP1 and histone H2B, respectively. Our study reveals a surprising difference between the mobility of DSBs located in the nuclear interior versus periphery (less than 1 μm from the nuclear envelope), with the interior DSBs being almost twice as mobile as the periphery DSBs. Remarkably, we find that the DSB sites possess a robust structural signature in a form of a unique chromatin compaction profile. Moreover, our data show that the DSB motion is subdiffusive and ATP-dependent and exhibits unique dynamical signatures, different from those of undamaged chromatin. Our findings reveal that the DSB mobility follows a universal relationship defined solely by the physical parameters describing the DSBs and their local environment, such as the DSB focus size (represented by the local accumulation of 53BP1), DSB density, and the local chromatin compaction. This suggests that the DSB-related repair processes are robust and likely deterministic because the observed dynamical signatures (DSB mobility) can be explained solely by their structural features (DSB focus size, local chromatin compaction). Such knowledge might help in detecting local DNA damage in live cells, as well as in aiding our biophysical understanding of genome integrity in health and disease.

Indexed as

DNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA DamageCell NucleusChromatinDNA RepairHumansChromatin

Identifiers

PMID31818467
PMCPMC7202935
OpenAlexW2986412242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.