Talk:Indirect DNA damage

Title
As per the comment I made on the direct DNA damage discussion page, the title for these articles needs to be changed, as there are many more ways of direct and indirect DNA damage than just UV radiation. Philman132 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with this. I think this page must be changed, either the title, or what's included in it.  It simply cannot stay as it is.  Hzh (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indirect DNA damage citation
I think the statement "92% of all melanoma are caused by indirect DNA damage " needs citation because the Nature paper referenced by this article doesn't make this claim. Davies et al. writes:

"The highest frequency of BRAF mutations is in malignant melanoma (Table 1). This does not seem to be related to the effects of ultraviolet light, the only known environmental risk factor for this disease. The T -> A change at nucleotide 1796, which accounts for 35 of 38 (92%) of BRAF mutations in melanoma (Table 1), is distinct from the CC -> TT or C -> T changes associated with pyrimidine dimer formation following exposure to ultraviolet light—these changes are commonly found, for example, in the TP53 gene in non-melanoma skin cancers7."

The Nature paper only claims that 92% of BRAF mutations in melanoma are caused by a T -> A change at nucleotide 1796. While this BRAF mutation may be caused by indirect DNA damage, the authors make no claims that this particular mutation is resposible for 92% of melanomas. Biochemallurgist (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanoma
Melanomas are well known to mestasize, the presence of them elsewhere than the skin may be due to this rather than travelling free radicals Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, sun damage is not the only mechanism for DNA damage. There are | non-skin melanomas (oral, rectal, etc) that don't appear to be associated with sun exposure or UV light at all, so their existence on un-illuminated skin doesn't necessarily need to be explained. Of the universe (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Melanin half-life
The stated half-life of melanin excitation is questionable. The cited source is about the half life of DNA excitation not melanin. Another user tagged the sentence as dubious saying "I've done fluorescence lifetime imaging of melanin, and it tends to stay excited for nanoseconds. The 1 fs value is probably off by a factor of a million." Of the universe (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Inner organ damage
I have been unable to find any discussion in reputable sources that substantiate the claim "reactive chemical species can travel through the body and affect other areas—possibly even inner organs." Another user, earlier in the talk section says "The claim "free radicals can travel through the body" is still in there, and still unsubstantiated. While technically true, it is misleading. Since the free radical will react with the first thing it bumps into, the probability of it travelling any significant distance is infinitesimally small." This other user's intuition matches my own, but I am not well versed in biology, so I don't know. Of the universe (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)