ReviewDNA repair2023
Spatial mapping of the DNA adducts in cancer.
Review in DNA repair, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of DNA Variations From Two In Vivo Skeletal Muscle Disorder Mouse Models Using Complementary Square-Wave Voltammetry and LC-MS/MS Analysis.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Multi-adductomics: Advancing mass spectrometry techniques for comprehensive exposome characterization.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2024Article
- DNA Adductomics: A Narrative Review of Its Development, Applications, and Future.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- Understanding exposomes and its relation with cancer risk in Malaysia based on epidemiological evidence: a narrative review.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
DNA adducts and strand breaks are induced by various exogenous and endogenous agents. Accumulation of DNA damage is implicated in many disease processes, including cancer, aging, and neurodegeneration. The continuous acquisition of DNA damage from exogenous and endogenous stressors coupled with defects in DNA repair pathways contribute to the accumulation of DNA damage within the genome and genomic instability. While mutational burden offers some insight into the level of DNA damage a cell may have experienced and subsequently repaired, it does not quantify DNA adducts and strand breaks. Mutational burden also infers the identity of the DNA damage. With advances in DNA adduct detection and quantification methods, there is an opportunity to identify DNA adducts driving mutagenesis and correlate with a known exposome. However, most DNA adduct detection methods require isolation or separation of the DNA and its adducts from the context of the nuclei. Mass spectrometry, comet assays, and other techniques precisely quantify lesion types but lose the nuclear context and even tissue context of the DNA damage. The growth in spatial analysis technologies offers a novel opportunity to leverage DNA damage detection with nuclear and tissue context. However, we lack a wealth of techniques capable of detecting DNA damage in situ. Here, we review the limited existing in situ DNA damage detection methods and examine their potential to offer spatial analysis of DNA adducts in tumors or other tissues. We also offer a perspective on the need for spatial analysis of DNA damage in situ and highlight Repair Assisted Damage Detection (RADD) as an in situ DNA adduct technique with the potential to integrate with spatial analysis and the challenges to be addressed.
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.