↓ Skip to main content

Nucleotide excision repair of oxidised genomic DNA is not a source of urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine

Overview of attention for article published in Free Radical Biology & Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nucleotide excision repair of oxidised genomic DNA is not a source of urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine
Published in
Free Radical Biology & Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2016.08.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark D. Evans, Vilas Mistry, Rajinder Singh, Daniel Gackowski, Rafał Różalski, Agnieszka Siomek-Gorecka, David H. Phillips, Jie Zuo, Leon Mullenders, Alex Pines, Yusaku Nakabeppu, Kunihiko Sakumi, Mutsuo Sekiguchi, Teruhisa Tsuzuki, Margherita Bignami, Ryszard Oliński, Marcus S. Cooke

Abstract

Urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodGuo) is a widely measured biomarker of oxidative stress. It has been commonly assumed to be a product of DNA repair, and therefore reflective of DNA oxidation. However, the source of urinary 8-oxodGuo is not understood, although potential confounding contributions from cell turnover and diet have been ruled out. Clearly it is critical to understand the precise biological origins of this important biomarker, so that the target molecule that is oxidised can be identified, and the significance of its excretion can be interpreted fully. In the present study we aimed to assess the contributions of nucleotide excision repair (NER), by both the global genome NER (GG-NER) and transcription-coupled NER (TC-NER) pathways, and sanitisation of the dGTP pool (e.g. via the activity of the MTH1 protein), on the production of 8-oxodGuo, using selected genetically-modified mice. In xeroderma pigmentosum A (XPA) mice, in which GG-NER and TC-NER are both defective, the urinary 8-oxodGuo data were unequivocal in ruling out a contribution from NER. In line with the XPA data, the production of urinary 8-oxodGuo was not affected in the xeroderma pigmentosum C mice, specifically excluding a role of the GG-NER pathway. The bulk of the literature supports the mechanism that the NER proteins are responsible for removing damage to the transcribed strand of DNA via TC-NER, and on this basis we also examined Cockayne Syndrome mice, which have a functional loss of TC-NER. These mice showed no difference in urinary 8-oxodGuo excretion, compared to wild type, demonstrating that TC-NER does not contribute to urinary 8-oxodGuo levels. These findings call into question whether genomic DNA is the primary source of urinary 8-oxodGuo, which would largely exclude it as a biomarker of DNA oxidation. The urinary 8-oxodGuo levels from the MTH1 mice (both knock-out and hMTH1-Tg) were not significantly different to the wild-type mice. We suggest that these findings are due to redundancy in the process, and that other enzymes substitute for the lack of MTH1, however the present study cannot determine whether or not the 2'-deoxyribonucleotide pool is the source of urinary 8-oxodGuo. On the basis of the above, urinary 8-oxodGuo is most accurately defined as a non-invasive biomarker of oxidative stress, derived from oxidatively generated damage to 2'-deoxyguanosine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Free Radical Biology & Medicine
#4,842
of 5,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,358
of 348,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Free Radical Biology & Medicine
#53
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.