Induction and Repair of Clustered DNA Lesions: What Do We Know So Far?
Abstract
The accumulated evidence in the literature indicates that a cluster of two or more lesions within one or two helical turns of the DNA is more challenging to repair than individual, widely dispersed lesions. The biological importance of clustered DNA lesions, especially complex double-strand breaks (DSB) and some types of non-DSB clusters (e.g., opposed bases that are oxidized), are now well known within the radiation research community. Still, many details of the induction and biological processing of complex clusters remain to be elucidated, especially in human cells. In this mini-review, we discuss recent advances in our understanding of the pathway(s) used by the mammalian cells to process and efficiently repair complex clusters other than the DSB. The effects of radiation quality and hypoxia on cluster induction and complexity are also briefly reviewed and discussed. Additional research is needed to better understand and quantify the multi-scale physiochemical and biological processes ultimately responsible for radiation-induced mutagenesis and genomic instability. New information and models to better quantify intermediate events (outcomes) related to the biological processing of non-DSB clusters are also important for ongoing efforts to assess the human health risks of terrestrial and space radiation environments and to guide the radiation therapy treatment planning process, especially for protons and carbon ions.
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?
DNA damage is a good indicator of radiation clustering properties and therefore of radiation quality.
“Albeit not exhaustive of cellular endpoints, DNA damage is here chosen as a good indicator of radiation clustering properties and therefore of radiation quality.”
From The origin of neutron biological effectiveness as a function of energy (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 113 · Cited by 278
- Authors
- Georgakilas, A. G., O'Neill, P., & Stewart, R. D.
- Affiliations
- East Carolina University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Georgakilas, Alexandros G.
- Venue
- Radiation Research
- Publisher
- Radiation Research Society
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 180
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 100-109
- ISSN
- 0033-7587 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-5404
- OpenAlex
- W1996315957
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 113
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 2.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Radiation Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
- Keywords
- clustered DNA lesions, DNA repair, radiation-induced DNA damage, hypoxia, radiation quality, radiation mutagenesis, genomic instability, space radiation, human cells
- MeSH terms
- Animals, DNA Damage, DNA Repair, Humans, Oxidation-Reduction, Radiation, Ionizing, Radiotherapy, DNA Breaks, Double-Stranded
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