DNA repair Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Elsevier

Current impact factor: 3.11

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 3.111
2013 Impact Factor 3.362
2012 Impact Factor 4.274
2011 Impact Factor 4.135
2010 Impact Factor 4.293
2009 Impact Factor 4.199
2008 Impact Factor 5.095
2007 Impact Factor 4.018
2006 Impact Factor 5.868
2005 Impact Factor 5.016
2004 Impact Factor 3.92
2003 Impact Factor 3.277

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 3.46
Cited half-life 6.40
Immediacy index 0.90
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 1.44
ISSN 1568-7856

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Authors pre-print on any website, including arXiv and RePEC
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website immediately
    • Author's post-print on open access repository after an embargo period of between 12 months and 48 months
    • Permitted deposit due to Funding Body, Institutional and Governmental policy or mandate, may be required to comply with embargo periods of 12 months to 48 months
    • Author's post-print may be used to update arXiv and RepEC
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Must link to publisher version with DOI
    • Author's post-print must be released with a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License
    • Publisher last reviewed on 03/06/2015
  • Classification

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In eukaryotic cells, DNA associates with histones and exists in the form of a chromatin hierarchy. Thus, it is generally believed that many eukaryotic cellular DNA processing events such as replication, transcription, recombination and DNA repair are influenced by the packaging of DNA into chromatin. This mini-review covers the current knowledge of DNA damage and repair in chromatin based on in vitro studies. Specifically, nucleosome assembly affects DNA damage formation in both random sequences and sequences with strong nucleosome-positioning signals such as 5S rDNA. At least three systems have been used to analyze the effect of nucleosome folding on nucleotide excision repair (NER) in vitro: (a) human cell extracts that have to rely on labeling of repair synthesis to monitor DNA repair, due to very low repair efficacy; (b) Xenopus oocyte nuclear extracts, that have very robust DNA repair efficacy, have been utilized to follow direct removal of DNA damage; (c) six purified human DNA repair factors (RPA, XPA, XPC, TFIIH, XPG, and XPF-ERCC1) that have been used to reconstitute excision repair in vitro. In general, the results have shown that nucleosome folding inhibits NER and, therefore, its activity must be enhanced by chromatin remodeling factors like SWI/SNF. In addition, binding of transcription factors such as TFIIIA to the 5S rDNA promoter also modulates NER efficacy.
    DNA repair 11/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.026

  • DNA repair 11/2015; 35:154-155. DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.10.005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The resection of 5'-DNA ends at a double-strand break (DSB) is an essential step in recombinational repair, as it exposes 3' single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) tails for interaction with a repair template. In mitosis, Exo1 and Sgs1 have a conserved function in the formation of long ssDNA tails, whereas this step in the processing of programmed meiotic DSBs is less well-characterized across model organisms. In budding yeast, which has been most intensely studied in this respect, Exo1 is a major meiotic nuclease. In addition, it exerts a nuclease-independent function later in meiosis in the conversion of DNA joint molecules into ZMM-dependent crossovers. In order to gain insight into the diverse meiotic roles of Exo1, we investigated the effect of Exo1 deletion in the ciliated protist Tetrahymena. We found that Exo1 together with Mre11, but without the help of Sgs1, promotes meiotic DSB end resection. Resection is completely eliminated only if both Mre11 and Exo1 are missing. This is consistent with the yeast model where Mre11 promotes resection in the 3'-5' direction and Exo1 in the opposite 5'-3' direction. However, while the endonuclease activity of Mre11 is essential to create an entry site for exonucleases and hence to start resection in budding yeast, Tetrahymena Exo1 is able to create single-stranded DNA in the absence of Mre11. Excluding a possible contribution of the Mre11 cofactor Sae2 (Com1) as an autonomous endonuclease, we conclude that there exists another unknown nuclease that initiates DSB processing in Tetrahymena. Consistent with the absence of the ZMM crossover pathway in Tetrahymena, crossover formation is independent of Exo1.
    DNA repair 10/2015; 35:137-143. DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.08.005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The DNA damage response (DDR) has been broadly defined as a complex network of cellular pathways that cooperate to sense and repair lesions in DNA. Multiple types of DNA damage, some natural DNA sequences, nucleotide pool deficiencies and collisions with transcription complexes can cause replication arrest to elicit the DDR. However, in practice, the term DDR as applied to eukaryotic/mammalian cells often refers more specifically to pathways involving the activation of the ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia mutated) and ATR (ATM-Rad3-related) kinases in response to double-strand breaks or arrested replication forks, respectively. Nevertheless, there are distinct responses to particular types of DNA damage that do not involve ATM or ATR. In addition, some of the aberrations that cause replication arrest and elicit the DDR cannot be categorized as direct DNA damage. These include nucleotide pool deficiencies, nucleotide sequences that can adopt non-canonical DNA structures, and collisions between replication forks and transcription complexes. The response to these aberrations can be called the genomic stress response (GSR), a term that is meant to encompass the sensing of all types of DNA aberrations together with the mechanisms involved in coping with them. In addition to fully functional cells, the consequences of processing genomic aberrations may include mutagenesis, genomic rearrangements and lethality.
    DNA repair 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.10.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: How DNA damaged is formed, recognized, and repaired in chromatin is an area of intense study. To better understand the structure activity relationships of damaged chromatin, mono and dinucleosomes containing site-specific damage have been prepared and studied. This review will focus on the design, synthesis, and characterization of model systems of damaged chromatin for structural, physical, and enzymatic studies.
    DNA repair 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.025
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) is a potent human carcinogen. Metabolic activation of NNK generates a number of DNA adducts including O(2)-methylthymidine (O(2)-Me-dT) and O(2)-[4-(3-pyridyl)-4-oxobut-1-yl]thymidine (O(2)-POB-dT). To investigate the biological effects of these O(2)-alkylthymidines in humans, we have replicated plasmids containing a site-specifically incorporated O(2)-Me-dT or O(2)-POB-dT in human embryonic kidney 293T (HEK293T) cells. The bulkier O(2)-POB-dT exhibited high genotoxicity and only 26% translesion synthesis (TLS) occurred, while O(2)-Me-dT was less genotoxic and allowed 55% TLS. However, O(2)-Me-dT was 20% more mutagenic (mutation frequency (MF) 64%) compared to O(2)-POB-dT (MF 53%) in HEK293T cells. The major type of mutations in each case was targeted T→A transversions (56% and 47%, respectively, for O(2)-Me-dT and O(2)-POB-dT). Both lesions induced a much lower frequency of T→G, the dominant mutation in bacteria. siRNA knockdown of the TLS polymerases (pols) indicated that pol η, pol ζ, and Rev1 are involved in the lesion bypass of O(2)-Me-dT and O(2)-POB-dT as the TLS efficiency decreased with knockdown of each pol. In contrast, MF of O(2)-Me-dT was decreased in pol ζ and Rev1 knockdown cells by 24% and 25%, respectively, while for O(2)-POB-dT, it was decreased by 44% in pol ζ knockdown cells, indicating that these TLS pols are critical for mutagenesis. Additional decrease in both TLS efficiency and MF was observed in cells deficient in pol ζ plus other Y-family pols. This study provided important mechanistic details on how these lesions are bypassed in human cells in both error-free and error-prone manner.
    DNA repair 10/2015; 35:63-70. DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.023
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Type 1A topoisomerases (topos) are ubiquitous enzymes involved in supercoiling regulation and in the maintenance of genome stability. Escherichia coli possesses two type 1A enzymes, topo I (topA) and topo III (topB). Cells lacking both enzymes form very long filaments and have severe chromosome segregation and growth defects. We previously found that RNase HI overproduction or a dnaT::aph mutation could significantly correct these phenotypes. This leads us to hypothesize that they were related to unregulated replication originating from R-loops, i.e. constitutive stable DNA replication (cSDR). cSDR, first observed in rnhA (RNase HI) mutants, is characterized by its persistence for several hours following protein synthesis inhibition and by its requirement for primosome components, including DnaT. Here, to visualize and measure cSDR, the incorporation of the nucleotide analog ethynyl deoxyuridine (EdU) during replication in E. coli cells pre-treated with protein synthesis inhibitors, was revealed by "click" labeling with Alexa Fluor(®) 488 in fixed cells, and flow cytometry analysis. cSDR was detected in rnhA mutants, but not in wild-type strains, and the number of cells undergoing cSDR was significantly reduced by the introduction of the dnaT::aph mutation. cSDR was also found in topA, double topA topB but not in topB null cells. This result is consistent with the established function of topo I in the inhibition of R-loop formation. Moreover, our finding that topB rnhA mutants are perfectly viable demonstrates that topo III is not uniquely required during cSDR. Thus, either topo I or III can provide the type 1A topo activity that is specifically required during cSDR to allow chromosome segregation.
    DNA repair 10/2015; 35:37-47. DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.08.004
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Eukaryotic genomes are packaged into chromatin, which is the physiological substrate for all DNA transactions, including DNA damage and repair. Chromatin organization imposes major constraints on DNA damage repair and thus undergoes critical rearrangements during the repair process. These rearrangements have been integrated into the "access-repair-restore" (ARR) model, which provides a molecular framework for chromatin dynamics in response to DNA damage. Here, we take a historical perspective on the elaboration of this model and describe the molecular players involved in damaged chromatin reorganization in human cells. In particular, we present our current knowledge of chromatin assembly coupled to DNA damage repair, focusing on the role of histone variants and their dedicated chaperones. Finally, we discuss the impact of chromatin rearrangements after DNA damage on chromatin function and epigenome maintenance.
    DNA repair 10/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: DNA in human cells is constantly assaulted by endogenous and exogenous DNA damaging agents. It is vital for the cell to respond rapidly and precisely to DNA damage to maintain genome integrity and reduce the risk of mutagenesis. Sophisticated reactions occur in chromatin surrounding the damaged site leading to the activation of DNA damage response (DDR), including transcription reprogramming, cell cycle checkpoint, and DNA repair. Histone proteins around the DNA damage play essential roles in DDR, through extensive post-translational modifications (PTMs) by a variety of modifying enzymes. One PTM on histones, mono-ubiquitylation, has emerged as a key player in cellular response to DNA damage. In this review, we will (1) briefly summarize the history of histone H2A and H2B ubiquitylation (H2Aub and H2Bub, respectively), (2) discuss their roles in transcription, and (3) their functions in DDR.
    DNA repair 09/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.016
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The disturbance of DNA helix conformation by bulky DNA damage poses hindrance to transcription elongating due to stalling of RNA polymerase at transcription blocking lesions. Stalling of RNA polymerase provokes the formation of R-loops, i.e. the formation of a DNA-RNA hybrid and a displaced single stranded DNA strand as well as displacement of spliceosomes. R-loops are processed into DNA single and double strand breaks by NER factors depending on TC-NER factors leading to genome instability. Moreover, stalling of RNA polymerase induces a strong signal for cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. These toxic and mutagenic effects are counteracted by a rapid recruitment of DNA repair proteins to perform transcription coupled nucleotide excision repair (TC-NER) to remove the blocking DNA lesions and to restore transcription. Recent studies have highlighted the role of backtracking of RNA polymerase to facilitate TC-NER and identified novel factors that play key roles in TC-NER and in restoration of transcription. On the molecular level these factors facilitate stability of the repair complex by promotion and regulation of various post-translational modifications of NER factors and chromatin substrate. In addition, the continuous flow of new factors that emerge from screening assays hints to several regulatory levels to safeguard the integrity of transcription elongation after disturbance by DNA damage that have yet to be explored.
    DNA repair 09/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.005
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Here we review our developments of and results with high resolution studies on global genome nucleotide excision repair (GG-NER) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Technologies were developed to examine NER at nucleotide resolution in yeast sequences of choice and to determine how these related to local changes in chromatin. We focused on how GG-NER relates to histone acetylation for its functioning and we identified the histone acetyltransferase Gcn5 and acetylation at lysines 9/14 of histone H3 as a major factor in enabling efficient repair. Factors influencing this Gcn5-mediated event are considered which include Rad16, a GG-NER specific SWI/SNF factor and the yeast histone variant of H2AZ (Htz1). We describe results employing primarily MFA2 as a model gene, but also those with URA3 located at subtelomeric sequences. In the latter case we also see a role for acetylation at histone H4. We then consider the development of a high resolution genome-wide approach that enables one to examine correlations between histone modifications and the NER of UV-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers throughout entire yeast genome. This is an approach that will enable rapid advances in understanding the complexities of how compacted chromatin in chromosomes is processed to access DNA damage before it is returned to its pre-damaged status to maintain epigenetic codes.
    DNA repair 09/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: XPC has long been considered instrumental in DNA damage recognition during global genome nucleotide excision repair (GG-NER). While this recognition is crucial for organismal health and survival, as XPC's recognition of lesions stimulates global genomic repair, more recent lines of research have uncovered many new non-canonical pathways in which XPC plays a role, such as base excision repair (BER), chromatin remodeling, cell signaling, proteolytic degradation, and cellular viability. Since the first discovery of its yeast homolog, Rad4, the involvement of XPC in cellular regulation has expanded considerably. Indeed, our understanding appears to barely scratch the surface of the incredible potential influence of XPC on maintaining proper cellular function. Here, we first review the canonical role of XPC in lesion recognition and then explore the new world of XPC function.
    DNA repair 09/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2015.09.004