Talk:CH391L/S2013 Logan R Myler Jan 30 2013: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: '''Tanya Raymond''' ATM is able to phosphorylate H2AX, but so is ATR and DNA-PK. [1] Do you have any speculation as to why, upon DNA-PK inhibition, there was only...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[[User:Tanya_E_Raymond|Tanya Raymond]]''' ATM is able to phosphorylate H2AX, but so is ATR and DNA-PK. [1] | '''[[User:Tanya_E_Raymond|Tanya Raymond]]''' ATM is able to phosphorylate H2AX, but so is ATR and DNA-PK. [1] Can you speculate as to why, upon DNA-PK inhibition, there was only diminished phosphorylation signal in the presence of MDC1 tethering? | ||
1. Monika Podhorecka, Andrzej Skladanowski, and Przemyslaw Bozko, “H2AX Phosphorylation: Its Role in DNA Damage Response and Cancer Therapy,” Journal of Nucleic Acids, vol. 2010, Article ID 920161, 9 pages, 2010. doi:10.4061/2010/920161 | 1. Monika Podhorecka, Andrzej Skladanowski, and Przemyslaw Bozko, “H2AX Phosphorylation: Its Role in DNA Damage Response and Cancer Therapy,” Journal of Nucleic Acids, vol. 2010, Article ID 920161, 9 pages, 2010. doi:10.4061/2010/920161 | ||
Revision as of 13:18, 31 January 2013
Tanya Raymond ATM is able to phosphorylate H2AX, but so is ATR and DNA-PK. [1] Can you speculate as to why, upon DNA-PK inhibition, there was only diminished phosphorylation signal in the presence of MDC1 tethering?
1. Monika Podhorecka, Andrzej Skladanowski, and Przemyslaw Bozko, “H2AX Phosphorylation: Its Role in DNA Damage Response and Cancer Therapy,” Journal of Nucleic Acids, vol. 2010, Article ID 920161, 9 pages, 2010. doi:10.4061/2010/920161
