Human DNA damage response and repair deficiency syndromes: linking genomic instability and cell cycle checkpoint proficiency
Abstract
A plethora of clinically distinct human disorders exist whose underlying cause is a defect in the response to or repair of DNA damage. The clinical spectrum of these conditions provides evidence for the role of the DNA damage response (DDR) in mediating diverse processes such as genomic stability, immune system function and normal human development. Cell lines from these disorders provide a valuable resource to help dissect the consequences of compromised DDR at the molecular level. Here we will discuss some well known, less well known and 'novel' DDR defective disorders with particular reference to the functional interplay between the DNA damage response and cell cycle checkpoints. We will describe recent advances in further delineating the genetic basis of Seckel syndrome and microcephalic osteodysplastic primordial dwarfism type II, which have shed more light on the interplay between the DDR, cycle progression and centrosomes. We will also overview recent developments concerning haploinsufficiency of DDR components and their association with certain genomic disorders such as Miller-Dieker lissencephaly syndrome and Williams-Beuren syndrome. Finally, we will discuss how defects in the DDR result in some unexpected clinical features before describing how the nature of a DDR defect impacts on the management and treatment of individuals with these conditions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mutations in checkpoint genes cause syndromes with increased cancer proneness or other clinical symptoms, especially neurological defects.
“The importance of the DNA damage checkpoint in the maintenance of genomic stability is underlined by the existence of many syndromes linked to mutations in checkpoint genes, causing increased cancer proneness or other clinical symptoms, especially neurological defects [13,14]”
From Mind the gap: keeping UV lesions in check (2011) · cites this paper as [14]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 175 · Cited by 97
- Authors
- Kerzendorfer, C., & O’Driscoll, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- O’Driscoll, Mark
- ORCID
- O’Driscoll, Mark
- Venue
- DNA Repair
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-09-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1139-1152
- ISSN
- 1568-7856 (ISSN-L)
- 1568-7864
- OpenAlex
- W2037517647
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 175
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 5.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- DNA repair (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Cancer Research UK
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
- Keywords
- DNA damage response, genomic instability, cell cycle checkpoints, Seckel syndrome, microcephalic osteodysplastic primordial dwarfism type II, centrosome, haploinsufficiency, Williams syndrome, genomic disorders, immune function, cell cycle progression
- MeSH terms
- Cell Cycle, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Humans, Syndrome, Gene Dosage, Genomic Instability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review