Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39747660›Full record

ReviewEMBO reports2025

The dynamics of loss of heterozygosity events in genomes.

Abhishek Dutta, Joseph Schacherer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EMBO reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Detection of "hidden" mitotic crossovers by long-read DNA sequencing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Host skin lipids triggerbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Frontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abhishek DuttaUniversité de Strasbourg, CNRS, GMGM UMR 7156, Strasbourg, France.
Joseph SchachererUniversité de Strasbourg, CNRS, GMGM UMR 7156, Strasbourg, France. schacherer@unistra.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-6606-6884

Funding

EC | European Research Council (ERC) ERC Consolidator Grant 772505
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic instability is a hallmark of tumorigenesis, yet it also plays an essential role in evolution. Large-scale population genomics studies have highlighted the importance of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events, which have long been overlooked in the context of genetic diversity and instability. Among various types of genomic mutations, LOH events are the most common and affect a larger portion of the genome. They typically arise from recombination-mediated repair of double-strand breaks (DSBs) or from lesions that are processed into DSBs. LOH events are critical drivers of genetic diversity, enabling rapid phenotypic variation and contributing to tumorigenesis. Understanding the accumulation of LOH, along with its underlying mechanisms, distribution, and phenotypic consequences, is therefore crucial. In this review, we explore the spectrum of LOH events, their mechanisms, and their impact on fitness and phenotype, drawing insights from Saccharomyces cerevisiae to cancer. We also emphasize the role of LOH in genomic instability, disease, and genome evolution.

Indexed as

GenomeLoss of HeterozygosityAnimalsDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA RepairEvolution, MolecularGenomic InstabilityHumansNeoplasmsPhenotypeSaccharomyces cerevisiaeDNA RepairGenome InstabilityLoss of HeterozygosityMutation AccumulationSaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID39747660
PMCPMC11811284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.