ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Model-based translation of DNA damage signaling dynamics across cell types.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on BTG2 in non‑tumor diseases (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Computational modelling identifies primary mediators of crosstalk between DNA damage and oxidative stress responses.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Interdependency of estradiol-mediated ERα activation and subsequent PR and GREB1 induction to control cell cycle progression.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Development of a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model for Nitrofurantoin in Rabbits, Rats, and Humans.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Application of AOPs to assist regulatory assessment of chemical risks - Case studies, needs and recommendations.Environmental research · 2023Review
- Unraveling the effect of intra- and intercellular processes on acetaminophen-induced liver injury.NPJ systems biology and applications · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interindividual variability in DNA damage response (DDR) dynamics may evoke differences in susceptibility to cancer. However, pathway dynamics are often studied in cell lines as alternative to primary cells, disregarding variability. To compare DDR dynamics in the cell line HepG2 with primary human hepatocytes (PHHs), we developed a HepG2-based computational model that describes the dynamics of DDR regulator p53 and targets MDM2, p21 and BTG2. We used this model to generate simulations of virtual PHHs and compared the results to those for PHH donor samples. Correlations between baseline p53 and p21 or BTG2 mRNA expression in the absence and presence of DNA damage for HepG2-derived virtual samples matched the moderately positive correlations observed for 50 PHH donor samples, but not the negative correlations between p53 and its inhibitor MDM2. Model parameter manipulation that affected p53 or MDM2 dynamics was not sufficient to accurately explain the negative correlation between these genes. Thus, extrapolation from HepG2 to PHH can be done for some DDR elements, yet our analysis also reveals a knowledge gap within p53 pathway regulation, which makes such extrapolation inaccurate for the regulator MDM2. This illustrates the relevance of studying pathway dynamics in addition to gene expression comparisons to allow reliable translation of cellular responses from cell lines to primary cells. Overall, with our approach we show that dynamical modeling can be used to improve our understanding of the sources of interindividual variability of pathway dynamics.
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.