↓ Skip to main content

Dietary phytochemicals, HDAC inhibition, and DNA damage/repair defects in cancer cells

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epigenetics, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dietary phytochemicals, HDAC inhibition, and DNA damage/repair defects in cancer cells
Published in
Clinical Epigenetics, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1868-7083-3-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Praveen Rajendran, Emily Ho, David E Williams, Roderick H Dashwood

Abstract

Genomic instability is a common feature of cancer etiology. This provides an avenue for therapeutic intervention, since cancer cells are more susceptible than normal cells to DNA damaging agents. However, there is growing evidence that the epigenetic mechanisms that impact DNA methylation and histone status also contribute to genomic instability. The DNA damage response, for example, is modulated by the acetylation status of histone and non-histone proteins, and by the opposing activities of histone acetyltransferase and histone deacetylase (HDAC) enzymes. Many HDACs overexpressed in cancer cells have been implicated in protecting such cells from genotoxic insults. Thus, HDAC inhibitors, in addition to unsilencing tumor suppressor genes, also can silence DNA repair pathways, inactivate non-histone proteins that are required for DNA stability, and induce reactive oxygen species and DNA double-strand breaks. This review summarizes how dietary phytochemicals that affect the epigenome also can trigger DNA damage and repair mechanisms. Where such data is available, examples are cited from studies in vitro and in vivo of polyphenols, organosulfur/organoselenium compounds, indoles, sesquiterpene lactones, and miscellaneous agents such as anacardic acid. Finally, by virtue of their genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, cancer chemopreventive agents are being redefined as chemo- or radio-sensitizers. A sustained DNA damage response coupled with insufficient repair may be a pivotal mechanism for apoptosis induction in cancer cells exposed to dietary phytochemicals. Future research, including appropriate clinical investigation, should clarify these emerging concepts in the context of both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms dysregulated in cancer, and the pros and cons of specific dietary intervention strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Lebanon 1 <1%
Unknown 185 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 22%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Student > Master 26 14%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 31 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Chemistry 9 5%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 37 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,534,309
of 24,079,362 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epigenetics
#155
of 1,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,191
of 143,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epigenetics
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,079,362 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 143,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.