ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
DNA Double Strand Break and Response Fluorescent Assays: Choices and Interpretation.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reductant-Responsive Squalene Dual-Prodrug Nanoparticles Co-Delivering Doxorubicin and Exatecan for Synergistic Breast Tumor Therapy.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- From In Vitro Genotoxicity Assays to Human Biomarkers: Interpreting DNA Damage Signals in Long-Term SSRI Therapy through a Translational Neurotoxicology Lens.Neurotoxicity research · 2026Review
- Radiation Biology of Radiopharmaceuticals: Beyond External Beam Radiation Therapy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Methodological Landscape of DNA Damage Response Detection: From Conventional Assays to Future Innovations.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- How histone modifications influence cellular radiosensitivity: Pharmaceutically targeting epigenetic regulators as a promising avenue to overcome radioresistance.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2025Review
- Anticancer Activity of Annonacin and Its Synergistic Enhancement of Docetaxel Efficacy in Prostate Cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Article
- Comprehensive multi-omics analyses expose a precision therapy strategy that targets replication stress in hepatocellular carcinoma using WEE1 inhibition.Journal of advanced research · 2025Article
- Review
- DNA Content and DNA Damage in Raw and Heat-Processed Foods.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025Article
- DNA Damage and Repair in Pancreatic Cancer-The Latest Findings.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Effect of X-Ray Energy on the Quantitative Yield of γH2AX and 53BP1 Foci in Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Early and Late Effects of Low-Dose X-ray Exposure in Human Fibroblasts: DNA Repair Foci, Proliferation, Autophagy, and Senescence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- ARID1A is involved in DNA double-strand break repair in gastric cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately characterizing DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs) and understanding the DNA damage response (DDR) is crucial for assessing cellular genotoxicity, maintaining genomic integrity, and advancing gene editing technologies. Immunofluorescence-based techniques have proven to be invaluable for quantifying and visualizing DSB repair, providing valuable insights into cellular repair processes. However, the selection of appropriate markers for analysis can be challenging due to the intricate nature of DSB repair mechanisms, often leading to ambiguous interpretations. This comprehensively summarizes the significance of immunofluorescence-based techniques, with their capacity for spatiotemporal visualization, in elucidating complex DDR processes. By evaluating the strengths and limitations of different markers, we identify where they are most relevant chronologically from DSB detection to repair, better contextualizing what each assay represents at a molecular level. This is valuable for identifying biases associated with each assay and facilitates accurate data interpretation. This review aims to improve the precision of DSB quantification, deepen the understanding of DDR processes, assay biases, and pathway choices, and provide practical guidance on marker selection. Each assay offers a unique perspective of the underlying processes, underscoring the need to select markers that are best suited to specific research objectives.
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.