↓ Skip to main content

Preventing Nonhomologous End Joining Suppresses DNA Repair Defects of Fanconi Anemia

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Cell, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
6 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
256 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Preventing Nonhomologous End Joining Suppresses DNA Repair Defects of Fanconi Anemia
Published in
Molecular Cell, July 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.06.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adele Adamo, Spencer J. Collis, Carrie A. Adelman, Nicola Silva, Zuzana Horejsi, Jordan D. Ward, Enrique Martinez-Perez, Simon J. Boulton, Adriana La Volpe

Abstract

Fanconi anemia (FA) is a complex cancer susceptibility disorder associated with DNA repair defects and infertility, yet the precise function of the FA proteins in genome maintenance remains unclear. Here we report that C. elegans FANCD2 (fcd-2) is dispensable for normal meiotic recombination but is required in crossover defective mutants to prevent illegitimate repair of meiotic breaks by nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ). In mitotic cells, we show that DNA repair defects of C. elegans fcd-2 mutants and FA-deficient human cells are significantly suppressed by eliminating NHEJ. Moreover, NHEJ factors are inappropriately recruited to sites of replication stress in the absence of FANCD2. Our findings are consistent with the interpretation that FA results from the promiscuous action of NHEJ during DNA repair. We propose that a critical function of the FA pathway is to channel lesions into accurate, as opposed to error-prone, repair pathways.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 3 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 247 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 28%
Researcher 64 25%
Student > Master 22 8%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Professor 15 6%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 30 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 129 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 79 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Chemistry 4 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 <1%
Other 7 3%
Unknown 30 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,932,966
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Cell
#3,837
of 7,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,059
of 106,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Cell
#15
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 106,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.