ArticleDNA repair2023
Temporal recruitment of base excision DNA repair factors in living cells in response to different micro-irradiation DNA damage protocols.
Article in DNA repair, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating the base excision repair pathway in chromatin-focus on oxidative DNA damage.Nucleic acids research · 2026Review
- PARP-1 in tumor complicated with depression-possible role and therapeutic perspective: a narrative review.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- Recruitment Kinetics of XRCC1 and RNF8 Following MeV Proton and α-Particle Micro-Irradiation.Biology · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Laser micro-irradiation across the nucleus rapidly generates localized chromatin-associated DNA lesions permitting analysis of repair protein recruitment in living cells. Recruitment of three fluorescently-tagged base excision repair factors [DNA polymerase β (pol β), XRCC1 and PARP1], known to interact with one another, was compared in gene-deleted mouse embryonic fibroblasts and in those expressing the endogenous factor. A low energy micro-irradiation (LEMI) forming direct single-strand breaks and a moderate energy (MEMI) protocol that additionally creates oxidized bases were compared. Quantitative characterization of repair factor recruitment and sensitivity to clinical PARP inhibitors (PARPi) was dependent on the micro-irradiation protocol. PARP1 recruitment was biphasic and generally occurred prior to pol β and XRCC1. After LEMI, but not after MEMI, pol β and XRCC1 recruitment was abolished by the PARPi veliparib. Consistent with this, pol β and XRCC1 recruitment following LEMI was considerably slower in PARP1-deficient cells. Surprisingly, the recruitment half-times and amplitudes for pol β were less affected by PARPi than were XRCC1 after MEMI suggesting there is a XRCC1-independent component for pol β recruitment. After LEMI, but not MEMI, pol β dissociation was more rapid than that of XRCC1. Unexpectedly, PARP1 dissociation was slowed in the absence of XRCC1 as well with a PARPi after LEMI but not MEMI, suggesting that XRCC1 facilitates PARP1 dissociation from specific DNA lesions. XRCC1-deficient cells showed pronounced hypersensitivity to the PARPi talazoparib correlating with its known cytotoxic PARP1 trapping activity. In contrast to DNA methylating agents, PARPi only minimally sensitized pol β and XRCC1-deficient cells to oxidative DNA damage suggesting differential binding of PARP1 to alternate repair intermediates. In summary, pol β, XRCC1, and PARP1 display recruitment kinetics that exhibit correlated and unique properties that depend on the DNA lesion and PARP activity revealing that there are multiple avenues utilized in the repair of chromatin-associated DNA.
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.