ArticleCancer science2023
Discovery of novel DNA-damaging agents through phenotypic screening for DNA double-strand break.
Article in Cancer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic crosstalk between amino acid metabolism and cancer drug efficacy: From mechanisms to therapeutic opportunities.iScience · 2025Review
- Chemical-Induced DNA Damage Identification by High-Throughput Detection of DNA Double-Strand Break.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Prediction of key biological processes from intercellular DNA damage differences through model-based fitting.iScience · 2024Article
- Discovery of novel DNA-damaging agents through phenotypic screening for DNA double-strand break.Cancer science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) seriously damage DNA and promote genomic instability that can lead to cell death. They are the source of conditions such as carcinogenesis and aging, but also have important applications in cancer therapy. Therefore, rapid detection and quantification of DSBs in cells are necessary for identifying carcinogenic and anticancer factors. In this study, we detected DSBs using a flow cytometry-based high-throughput method to analyze γH2AX intensity. We screened a chemical library containing 9600 compounds and detected multiple DNA-damaging compounds, although we could not identify mechanisms of action through this procedure. Thus, we also profiled a representative compound with the highest DSB potential, DNA-damaging agent-1 (DDA-1), using a bioinformatics-based method we termed "molecular profiling." Prediction and verification analysis revealed DDA-1 as a potential inhibitor of topoisomerase IIα, different from known inhibitors such as etoposide and doxorubicin. Additional investigation of DDA-1 analogs and xenograft models suggested that DDA-1 is a potential anticancer drug. In conclusion, our findings established that combining high-throughput DSB detection and molecular profiling to undertake phenotypic analysis is a viable method for efficient identification of novel DNA-damaging compounds for clinical applications.
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.