Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40860596›Full record

ArticleBiology methods & protocols2025

Fast and accurate quantification of double-strand breaks in microsatellites by digital PCR.

Cécile Palao, Adèle Kovacs, Maria Teresa Teixeira, Guy-Franck Richard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology methods & protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Cécile PalaoDépartement Génomes & Génétique, Institut Pasteur, Université de Paris, CNRS UMR 3525, 25 rue du Dr Roux, 75015, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9188-567X
Adèle KovacsDépartement Génomes & Génétique, Institut Pasteur, Université de Paris, CNRS UMR 3525, 25 rue du Dr Roux, 75015, Paris, France.
Maria Teresa TeixeiraLaboratoire de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire des Eucaryotes, Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimie, Sorbonne Université, CNRS UMR 8226, 75005, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9466-7951
Guy-Franck RichardDépartement Génomes & Génétique, Institut Pasteur, Université de Paris, CNRS UMR 3525, 25 rue du Dr Roux, 75015, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8233-3532

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) represent critical events in genome integrity, arising from both endogenous cellular processes and exogenous factors. These breaks are implicated in various genomic aberrations and chromosomal rearrangements, leading to cancers and genetic disorders. Common and rare fragile sites, containing repetitive elements and non-B DNA structures, are particularly prone to breakage under replication stress, which play a pivotal role in cancer development and genetic diseases. Accurate quantification of DNA breaks in the context of repetitive sequences such as microsatellites or non-B DNA structures is technically challenging. We have been comparing four different methods to reliably quantify DSBs in repetitive DNA, namely Southern blot, DSB-PCR, real-time DSB-qPCR, and digital PCR (dPCR). We show here that dPCR offers enhanced sensitivity and specificity compared to other methods. This provides significant applications for future disease diagnosis, understanding molecular mechanisms generating chromosomal breakage and for the development of gene therapies for microsatellite expansion disorders.

Indexed as

digital PCRDNA double-strand breaksfragile sitesnon-B DNA structuresrepeat expansion disorders

Identifiers

PMID40860596
PMCPMC12377901

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.