Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34623548›Full record

ReviewEcotoxicology (London, England)2022

Current aspects of DNA damage and repair in ecotoxicology: a mini-review.

Pedro M Costa

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. After a Century of Research into Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens, Where Do We Stand?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

1 author.

Pedro M CostaAssociate Laboratory i4HB - Institute for Health and Bioeconomy, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, 2819-516, Caparica, Portugal. pmcosta@fct.unl.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9072-3522

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The preservation of genomic stability against environmental stressors is a major adaptive feature that is well-conserved among both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The complex and fine-tuned mechanisms that evolved to repair DNA following exposure to radiation and chemical insult are also the first line of defence against genotoxicants. Consequently, impairing the DNA damage response leads to accumulation of genomic lesions that may ultimately lead to cell death, mutagenesis and even teratogenesis and neoplasia. Understanding how pollutants affect DNA repair machinery is thus paramount to interpret the often unclear or contradictory findings from genotoxicity assessment. The main purpose of the present mini-review is to contribute to the slowly-growing awareness among ecotoxicologists that DNA damage is not limited to direct interactions of noxious compounds with the DNA molecule. Despite the limited number of studies addressing this issue in the field, special modifications of methods for genotoxicity assessment, combined with state-of-the-art molecular tools, are beginning to show promising results in the unravelling of DNA repair proteins, genes and networks in non-conventional model organisms. I will review the essentials of the most important DNA repair pathways and discuss methods and approaches that can assist steering ecotoxicologists towards a better understanding of genotoxic hazard and risk.

Indexed as

EcotoxicologyEnvironmental PollutantsDNA DamageDNA RepairGenomic InstabilityHumansEnvironmental PollutantsBiomarkersChemical insultGenomic instabilityGenotoxicityMutagenicityPollution

Identifiers

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.