Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31861886›Full record

ReviewGenes2019

Comparison of Different Methods to Determine the DNA Sequence Preference of Ionising Radiation-Induced DNA Damage.

Vincent Murray, Megan E Hardie, Shweta D Gautam

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Vincent MurraySchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Megan E HardieSchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Shweta D GautamSchool of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ionising radiation (IR) is known to induce a wide variety of lesions in DNA. In this review, we compared three different techniques that examined the DNA sequence preference of IR-induced DNA damage at nucleotide resolution. These three techniques were: the linear amplification/polymerase stop assay, the end-labelling procedure, and Illumina next-generation genome-wide sequencing. The DNA sequence preference of IR-induced DNA damage was compared in purified DNA sequences including human genomic DNA. It was found that the DNA sequence preference of IR-induced DNA damage identified by the end-labelling procedure (that mainly detected single-strand breaks) and Illumina next-generation genome-wide sequencing (that mainly detected double-strand breaks) was at C nucleotides, while the linear amplification/polymerase stop assay (that mainly detected base damage) was at G nucleotides. A consensus sequence at the IR-induced DNA damage was found to be 5'-AGGC*C for the end-labelling technique, 5'-GGC*MH (where * is the cleavage site, M is A or C, H is any nucleotide except G) for the genome-wide technique, and 5'-GG* for the linear amplification/polymerase stop procedure. These three different approaches are important because they provide a deeper insight into the mechanism of action of IR-induced DNA damage.

Indexed as

DNA DamageGenome, HumanHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMitochondriaRadiation, IonizingSequence Analysis, DNADNA damageDNA sequence preferencefluorescently end-labelled DNAgamma radiationgenome-wide sequencingpolymerase stop assay

Identifiers

PMID31861886
PMCPMC7016695

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.