ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022
Application of silver solid amalgam electrodes in electrochemical detection of DNA damage.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrochemical detection of the oxidative damage of a potential pyrimido[5,4-g]pteridine-derived antitumor agent toward DNA.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- CISS-Based Label-Free Novel Electrochemical Impedimetric Detection of UVC-Induced DNA Damage.ACS omega · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, a mercury meniscus-modified silver solid amalgam electrode was used for the first time for the detection of UV-induced DNA damage. The integrity of the double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) layer was detected indirectly using the evaluation of the methylene blue reduction within its accumulation into dsDNA after the UV irradiation of the biosensor surface with two different wavelengths (254 nm and 365 nm), monitored by differential pulse voltammetry. Moreover, a simple electrochemical characterization of the biosensor surface was performed using cyclic voltammetry of the redox indicator hexaammineruthenium chloride (RuHex) present in the solution. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was used in both cases for the verification of results. Individual electrochemical signals depend on the time of biosensor exposure to UV irradiation as well as on the selected wavelengths and are different for both used types of dsDNA (salmon sperm and calf thymus). The highest degradation degree up to 60% was observed using sensitive EIS of methylene blue after 10 min irradiation of the biosensor at 254 nm. The use of RuHex seems to be less sensitive for the detection of dsDNA structural changes, when the degradation degree up to 40% was observed, using EIS at the same conditions.
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.