ReviewDNA repair2022
To indel or not to indel: Factors influencing mutagenesis during chromosomal break end joining.
Review in DNA repair, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Patterns of G-Quadruplex-Forming Sequence Conservation in Primates.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- 53BP1-RIF1 and DNA-PKcs show distinct genetic interactions with diverse chromosomal break repair outcomes.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Chromosomal rearrangements and instability caused by the LINE-1 retrotransposon.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Progeria-based vascular model identifies networks associated with cardiovascular aging and disease.Aging cell · 2024Article
- Article
- LINE-1 retrotransposition and its deregulation in cancers: implications for therapeutic opportunities.Genes & development · 2023Review
- Portrait of Dysferlinopathy: Diagnosis and Development of Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Contribution of Microhomology to Genome Instability: Connection between DNA Repair and Replication Stress.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chromosomal DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are the effective lesion of radiotherapy and other clastogenic cancer therapeutics, and are also the initiating event of many approaches to gene editing. Ligation of the DSBs by end joining (EJ) pathways can restore the broken chromosome, but the repair junctions can have insertion/deletion (indel) mutations. The indel patterns resulting from DSB EJ are likely defined by the initial structure of the DNA ends, how the ends are processed and synapsed prior to ligation, and the factors that mediate the ligation step. In this review, we describe key factors that influence these steps of DSB EJ in mammalian cells, which is significant both for understanding mutagenesis resulting from clastogenic cancer therapeutics, and for developing approaches to manipulating gene editing outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.