Cited by 129DNA Repair MechanismsGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 184 of the 184 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 175 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Mechanisms of DNA damage-mediated neurotoxicity in neurodegenerative disease

Open access
Welch, Gwyneth, Tsai, Li‐Huei·2022·The EMBO Reports

Abstract

Neurons are highly susceptible to DNA damage accumulation due to their large energy requirements, elevated transcriptional activity, and long lifespan. While newer research has shown that DNA breaks and mutations may facilitate neuron diversity during development and neuronal function throughout life, a wealth of evidence indicates deficient DNA damage repair underlies many neurological disorders, especially age-associated neurodegenerative diseases. Recently, efforts to clarify the molecular link between DNA damage and neurodegeneration have improved our understanding of how the genomic location of DNA damage and defunct repair proteins impact neuron health. Additionally, work establishing a role for senescence in the aging and diseased brain reveals DNA damage may play a central role in neuroinflammation associated with neurodegenerative disease.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes evidence that DNA damage contributes mechanistically to neurodegeneration through two routes: the genomic location of lesions disrupting transcription of neuronal genes, and downstream lesion-detection signaling (DDR and cytosolic DNA sensing) driving apoptosis, senescence, and neuroinflammation. It argues that DNA repair syndromes serve as proxies for aging-related neurodegeneration and that senescence biology may link DNA damage to neuroinflammation.

Key findings

  • Neurons are uniquely vulnerable because they are post-mitotic (excluding error-free homologous recombination), long-lived, and transcriptionally/energetically demanding — consuming approximately 20% of the body's available oxygen, with ROS-mediated damage greatest in the nervous system.
  • DNA breaks have functional roles in neurons: activity-induced DSBs occur at immediate-early gene promoters (e.g., after bicuculline stimulation, fear learning, or novel environment exposure), but recurrence at these regulatory sequences makes them vulnerable to mutation and translocation; postmitotic neurons accumulate breaks in regulatory elements associated with neuronal function.
  • SSBR mutations manifest exclusively as neurodegenerative syndromes (AOA1/AOA4 from APTX/PNKP, SCAN1 from TDP1, AOA5 from XRCC1); mutant XRCC1 causes PARP1 hyperactivity, excessive poly(ADP-ribose), NAD+/ATP depletion, Parthanatos, and in mouse brain progressive cerebellar degeneration, ataxia, seizure-like activity, and dysregulated presynaptic calcium signaling.
  • DNA damage links to neuroinflammation via ATM–NF-κB signaling and cGAS-STING sensing of cytosolic self-DNA; removal of senescent cells mitigates NFT burden, amyloid burden, neuronal loss, and cognitive decline in mouse models of tauopathy, AD, PD, and normal aging.

Methods

  • Narrative review; no primary data collection or new experiments.
  • Synthesizes literature on DDR pathways (SSB/BER, NER, DSB/NHEJ, HR), DNA repair disorders, age-associated neurodegenerative disease, and senescence/neuroinflammation.
  • Discusses DNA lesion-mapping technologies (γH2AX ChIP-seq, END-seq, BLISS, SSiNGLe, LAM-HTGTS, SAR-seq, Click-Code-seq, Nick-seq, ATAC-seq) and their application to neurons.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: the mechanistic relationship between neuroinflammation and DNA damage "has yet to be fully realized"; the utility of newer break-mapping techniques (BLISS, SSiNGLe) in neurons has yet to be evaluated; it remains to be seen whether DNA damage itself is the main inducer of senescence in each brain cell type; the concept of senescent-like phenotypes in neurons is "particularly controversial" because senescence was initially defined in cycling cells; murine ATM knockout only mildly recapitulates AT ataxia and cerebellar atrophy, limiting mechanistic work.
  • Evident from the text: as a review, all conclusions rest on cited primary studies rather than new data; several key claims (e.g., neuronal cGAS-STING in HD/ALS, neuronal senescence) are described as hypotheses or early observations requiring further dissection.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15252/embr.202154217

Cites

184 of 184 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Sources of DNA damage in the brain Transcriptional activities can result in topoisomerase cleavage complexes, which lead to the induction of SSBs or DSBs depending upon the topoisomerase in question. Additionally, metabolic activity by mitochondria generate ROS, which can scar DNA bases with oxidative modifications. Although less common in the adult brain, cell division is also a source of DNA damage. Proliferation increases the chance of replication fork and transcription complex collision, thereby inducing DSBs. In the developing brain, this is a particular risk for NPCs, which harbor increased translocations in long genes (where these collisions are most likely to occur) important for neuronal function. Cognitively demanding tasks recruit specific neuronal ensembles whose plasticity is highly dependent upon immediate early gene transcription. Therefore, neurons generate topoisomerase II‐mediated DSBs in response to learning and memory. Finally, the proteins responsible for various neurodegenerative diseases have also been found to play roles in DNA damage detection and repair. (Created with BioRender.com).
Figure 1 Sources of DNA damage in the brain Transcriptional activities can result in topoisomerase cleavage complexes, which lead to the induction of SSBs or DSBs depending upon the topoisomerase in question. Additionally, metabolic activity by mitochondria generate ROS, which can scar DNA bases with oxidative modifications. Although less common in the adult brain, cell division is also a source of DNA damage. Proliferation increases the chance of replication fork and transcription complex collision, thereby inducing DSBs. In the developing brain, this is a particular risk for NPCs, which harbor increased translocations in long genes (where these collisions are most likely to occur) important for neuronal function. Cognitively demanding tasks recruit specific neuronal ensembles whose plasticity is highly dependent upon immediate early gene transcription. Therefore, neurons generate topoisomerase II‐mediated DSBs in response to learning and memory. Finally, the proteins responsible for various neurodegenerative diseases have also been found to play roles in DNA damage detection and repair. (Created with BioRender.com).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 DNA lesions and mutations identified in neural genes and the techniques used to map them While all cell types incur DNA damage and mutations, neurons in particular are susceptible due to activity‐induced transcription. Immediate‐early genes and other neuronal genes that enable synaptic function are highly transcribed. Accordingly, they accumulate DNA lesions and mutations in their gene body (Wei et al, 2016) and regulatory regions (Lodato et al, 2015; Reid et al, 2021; Wu et al, 2021). The induction of DSBs in the promoters of immediate‐early genes facilitates gene expression (Madabhushi et al, 2015). Over time, these insults may impair neural function (Lu et al, 2004; Lodato et al, 2018; Pao et al, 2020). (Created with BioRender.com).
Figure 2 DNA lesions and mutations identified in neural genes and the techniques used to map them While all cell types incur DNA damage and mutations, neurons in particular are susceptible due to activity‐induced transcription. Immediate‐early genes and other neuronal genes that enable synaptic function are highly transcribed. Accordingly, they accumulate DNA lesions and mutations in their gene body (Wei et al, 2016) and regulatory regions (Lodato et al, 2015; Reid et al, 2021; Wu et al, 2021). The induction of DSBs in the promoters of immediate‐early genes facilitates gene expression (Madabhushi et al, 2015). Over time, these insults may impair neural function (Lu et al, 2004; Lodato et al, 2018; Pao et al, 2020). (Created with BioRender.com).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 DNA damage initiates inflammatory signaling through DDR and cGAS‐STING. ATM‐NF‐kB pathway The activation of ATM by DSBs leads to its coupling with NEMO in the nucleus. NEMO is phosphorylated by ATM and SUMOylated by PIASy in a PARP1‐dependent manner, which is not shown here. These modifications lead to NEMO monoubiquitination, and the ATM‐NEMO complex is transported to the cytoplasm. Here, NEMO partners with IKKb and IKKa to form the active Inhibitor of KappaB Kinase (IKK) complex. The IKK phosphorylates IkB, allowing NF‐kB to be transported to the nucleus. The most common form of NF‐kB is the heterodimer p50‐p65, shown here. The phosphorylation of IkB leads to its polyubiquitination and subsequent degradation. cGAS‐STING pathway: DSBs result in the leakage of self‐DNA into the cytosol, which is sensed by cGAS. cGAS generates second messenger cyclic GAMP. cGAMP binds to STING, which activates TANK‐binding kinase 1 (TBK1), which in turn activates IFN Regulatory Factor 3 (IRF3). Homodimerized IRF3 transports to the nucleus and activates the expression of inflammatory genes. STING also facilitates the formation of the IKK complex, which phosphorylates IkB to activate NF‐kB. TLR9 pathway: Endosomal double‐strand DNA is bound by TLR9, activating MyD88, which interacts with and activates IRAK1,2,and 4. IRAK1 and 4 dissociate from MyD88 and activate TRAF6. TRAF6 ubiquitinates NEMO, a member of the IKK complex that results in NF‐kB translocation into the nucleus. Inflammasome pathway: NLRP3 detects cytosolic DNA, leading to the assembly of the NLRP3, ASC, pro‐Caspase I inflammasome. pro‐Caspase I autoproteolytically matures to functional Caspase I, which cleaves pro‐IL1b and pro‐IL18 to generate functional IL1b and IL18.
Figure 3 DNA damage initiates inflammatory signaling through DDR and cGAS‐STING. ATM‐NF‐kB pathway The activation of ATM by DSBs leads to its coupling with NEMO in the nucleus. NEMO is phosphorylated by ATM and SUMOylated by PIASy in a PARP1‐dependent manner, which is not shown here. These modifications lead to NEMO monoubiquitination, and the ATM‐NEMO complex is transported to the cytoplasm. Here, NEMO partners with IKKb and IKKa to form the active Inhibitor of KappaB Kinase (IKK) complex. The IKK phosphorylates IkB, allowing NF‐kB to be transported to the nucleus. The most common form of NF‐kB is the heterodimer p50‐p65, shown here. The phosphorylation of IkB leads to its polyubiquitination and subsequent degradation. cGAS‐STING pathway: DSBs result in the leakage of self‐DNA into the cytosol, which is sensed by cGAS. cGAS generates second messenger cyclic GAMP. cGAMP binds to STING, which activates TANK‐binding kinase 1 (TBK1), which in turn activates IFN Regulatory Factor 3 (IRF3). Homodimerized IRF3 transports to the nucleus and activates the expression of inflammatory genes. STING also facilitates the formation of the IKK complex, which phosphorylates IkB to activate NF‐kB. TLR9 pathway: Endosomal double‐strand DNA is bound by TLR9, activating MyD88, which interacts with and activates IRAK1,2,and 4. IRAK1 and 4 dissociate from MyD88 and activate TRAF6. TRAF6 ubiquitinates NEMO, a member of the IKK complex that results in NF‐kB translocation into the nucleus. Inflammasome pathway: NLRP3 detects cytosolic DNA, leading to the assembly of the NLRP3, ASC, pro‐Caspase I inflammasome. pro‐Caspase I autoproteolytically matures to functional Caspase I, which cleaves pro‐IL1b and pro‐IL18 to generate functional IL1b and IL18.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

82 Not checked yet · 28 Own interpretation · 20 No basis given · 5 Partly supported · 2 Sources not found · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 156 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
43 of 43
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Neurons are post-mitotic and long-lived.

    “Post‐mitotic neurons are the basic cellular unit of the nervous system.”
    “neurons perform transcriptionally and energetically demanding cellular functions and are post‐mitotic and long‐lived.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Glial cells are replaceable, have lower energy requirements, and can re-enter the cell cycle.

    “compared to neurons, glial cells are replaceable, have lower energy requirements, and, in some cases, are able to re‐enter the cell cycle, thus facilitating DNA repair.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most mutations are likely neutral.

    “While most mutations are likely to be neutral”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    HD toxicity is derived from the CAG trinucleotide expansion of the Huntingtin gene.

    “Aberrant DNA repair may also directly mediate the severity of neurodegenerative disorders like HD, whose toxicity is derived from the CAG trinucleotide expansion of the Huntingtin gene.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Age-dependent CAG expansion occurs in the brains of individuals with HD, gradually increasing the toxicity of the Huntington protein in the striatum.

    “Specifically, age‐dependent CAG expansion occurs in the brains of individuals with HD, gradually increasing the toxicity of the Huntington protein in the striatum.”
5 of 5

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 183 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lai J, Kim J, Jeffries AM, Tolles A, Chittenden TW, Buckley PG, Yu TW, Lodato MA, Lee EA (2021) Single‐nucleus transcriptomic analyses reveal microglial activation underlying cerebellar degeneration in Ataxia Telangiectasia. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.09.459619 [PREPRINT] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Metadata

Authors
Welch, G., & Tsai, L.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Tsai, Li‐Huei
Venue
The EMBO Reports
Published
2022-05-02
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
e54217-e54217
ISSN
  • 1469-221X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3178
OpenAlex
W4225288591
Cited by
129
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EMBO Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
DNA damage, neurotoxicity, neurodegenerative diseases, DNA repair, DNA strand breaks, DNA mutations, neuronal aging, cellular senescence, neuroinflammation, age-related neurodegeneration
MeSH terms
Aging, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Humans, Neurons, Neurodegenerative Diseases

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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