4.5 Review

DNA repair during in utero development: A review of the current state of knowledge, research needs, and potential application in risk assessment

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2011.05.003

关键词

DNA repair; In utero; Development; Gene expression; Genotoxicity; Teratogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exposure to genotoxic chemicals during in titer development may lead to outcomes such as altered gene transcription, mutations, or cell death. Ultimately, such exposures may result in cancer, malformations, or functional deficits. As a mechanism that can limit the impact of genotoxicants in adults, DNA repair may also be an important factor that determines the outcome of the conceptus. This review of the literature examines the current understanding of DNA repair during in utero mammalian development by investigating the importance of maintaining genomic integrity and factors affecting susceptibility, including DNA repair. Most data have been derived from studies in rodent models focusing on DNA repair gene expression, which can vary according to developmental stages, tissues, and DNA repair pathways. Gene expression information is limited for humans but is suggestive that the major repair pathways exist during in titer development. Due to the complexities of DNA repair and its regulation by other pathways, available gene expression data may be limited for clarifying the role of DNA repair as a mechanism controlling the response to in utero exposures to genotoxicants. While not a comprehensive dataset, functional studies assessing in utero DNA repair capacity do demonstrate the variable ability of fetal tissue to remove DNA damage. Data gaps are recognized and recommendations for additional research using stems cells and traditional embryo models are identified. Finally, a brief discussion focuses on how data regarding in titer DNA repair may ultimately be utilized in health risk assessments of genotoxic chemicals. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据