ArticleMutagenesis2026
Differential roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the DNA damage response revealed by isogenic V79 mutant cell lines.
Article in Mutagenesis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to establish a novel BRCA1 mutant cell line from Chinese hamster V79 cells and clarify the role of BRCA1 in the DNA damage response (DDR) by comparison with a BRCA2 mutant line, V-C8. Using CRISPR/Cas9 editing, we generated a hypomorphic BRCA1 mutant, designated B1-21, carrying a 27-bp in-frame deletion in exon 4. This mutation deletes nine amino acids within the RING domain. B1-21, V79, and V-C8 cells were analyzed for DDR phenotypes. Both mutants showed impaired RAD51 foci formation, defective homologous recombination repair, and increased sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents. B1-21 cells were particularly sensitive to camptothecin and the PARP inhibitor NU1025, whereas V-C8 cells showed higher sensitivity to etoposide, cisplatin, mitomycin C, and bleomycin. Although γH2AX and FANCD2 focus responses were similar between V79 and B1-21, RAD51 recruitment was only partially reduced in B1-21 and completely absent in V-C8. B1-21 also displayed chromosomal instability (19-20 chromosomes), while V79 and V-C8 maintained a stable karyotype. After gamma irradiation, V-C8 cells accumulated substantially more chromatid-type aberrations and retained unrepaired chromatin longer than B1-21. Neither mutant showed normal RAD51 foci formation, radiation-induced sister chromatid exchange or an effective G2/M checkpoint arrest, unlike wild-type cells. Mitotic index measurements further confirmed checkpoint failure: V79 cells suppressed mitotic entry after irradiation, while B1-21 and V-C8 continued to enter mitosis, with V-C8 showing the most complete checkpoint breakdown. These findings indicate that partial disruption of the BRCA1 RING domain results in a hypomorphic phenotype with impaired homologous recombination, defective checkpoint control, and enhanced genotoxic sensitivity. The isogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutant V79 lines offer a valuable model for dissecting DDR pathway differences and developing mutation-specific therapeutic strategies targeting BRCA-mutant cancers.
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.