Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10999400›Full record

ReviewPlant molecular biology2000

Paramutation in maize.

V L Chandler, W B Eggleston, J E Dorweiler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Plant molecular biology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Epigenetic regulation in plants.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2014
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Paramutagenicity of a p1 epiallele in maize.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in plants.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2011
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

V L ChandlerDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson 85721, USA. chandler@ag.arizona.edu
W B Eggleston
J E Dorweiler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paramutation is a heritable change in gene expression induced by allele interactions. This review summarizes key experiments on three maize loci, which undergo paramutation. Similarities and differences between the phenomenology at the three loci are described. In spite of many differences with respect to the stability of the reduced expression states at each locus or whether paramutation correlates with DNA methylation and repeated sequences within the loci, recent experiments are consistent with a common mechanism underlying paramutation at all three loci. Most strikingly, trans-acting mutants have been isolated that prevent paramutation at all three loci and lead to the activation of silenced Mutator transposable elements. Models consistent with the hypothesis that paramutation involves heritable changes in chromatin structure are presented. Several potential roles for paramutation are discussed. These include localizing recombination to low-copy sequences within the genome, establishing and maintaining chromatin domain boundaries, and providing a mechanism for plants to transmit an environmentally influenced expression state to progeny.

Indexed as

MutationAllelesDNA MethylationGene Expression Regulation, PlantNuclear ProteinsPlant ProteinsRecombination, GeneticZea maysNuclear ProteinsPlant ProteinsR protein, Zea mays

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.