Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMed

Nucleotide excision repair in differentiated cells.

van der Wees C., Jansen J., Vrieling H., van der Laarse A., Van Zeeland A., Mullenders L.

Narrative Review on Systemic / IV, published in Mutat Res (2006) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Mutat Res (2006)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
16879838
DOI
10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2006.06.005

Abstract (original English)

Nucleotide excision repair (NER) is the principal pathway for the removal of a wide range of DNA helix-distorting lesions and operates via two NER subpathways, i.e. global genome repair (GGR) and transcription-coupled repair (TCR). Although detailed information is available on expression and efficiency of NER in established mammalian cell lines, little is known about the expression of NER pathways in (terminally) differentiated cells. The majority of studies in differentiated cells have focused on repair of UV-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD) and 6-4-photoproducts (6-4PP) because of the high frequency of photolesions at low level of toxicity and availability of sensitive technologies to determine photolesions in defined regions of the genome. The picture that emerges from these studies is blurred and rather complex. Fibroblasts and terminally differentiated myocytes of the rat heart display equally efficient GGR of 6-4PP but poor repair of CPD due to the absence of p48 expression. This repair phenotype is clearly different from human terminal differentiated neurons. Furthermore, both cell types were found to carry out TCR of CPD, thus mimicking the repair phenotype of established rodent cell lines. In contrast, in intact rat spermatogenic cells repair was very inefficient at the genome overall level and in transcriptionally active genes indicating that GGR and TCR ar

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
AdipocytesAnimalsCell DifferentiationDNA DamageDNA RepairEmbryonic Stem CellsHepatocytesHumansMaleMice

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research