Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15342558›Full record

ArticleGenome research2004

Phylogenetic footprint analysis of IGF2 in extant mammals.

Jennifer R Weidman, Susan K Murphy, Catherine M Nolan, Fred S Dietrich, Randy L Jirtle

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Unravelling the evolutionary origins of X chromosome inactivation in mammals: insights from marsupials and monotremes.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2009
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Evolution of the CDKN1C-KCNQ1 imprinted domain.BMC evolutionary biology · 2008
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative analysis of sequence characteristics of imprinted genes in human, mouse, and cattle.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2007
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparative phylogenetic analysis reveals multiple non-imprinted isoforms of opossum Dlk1.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2006
    Article
  18. Imprinting evolution and human health.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society
    Review
  19. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer R WeidmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Susan K Murphy
Catherine M Nolan
Fred S Dietrich
Randy L Jirtle
Duke University · USUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

TUMOR SUPPRESSOR FUNCTION OF THE M6P/IGF2 RECEPTORR01ES008823 · NIEHS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JIRTLE, RANDY L · 1997 to 2007
$2.2M
SURVIVAL AND CARCINOGENESIS IN TRANSPLANTED HEPATOCYTESR01CA025951 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JIRTLE, RANDY L · 1985 to 2004
$1.4M
Dietary Supplements, Imprint Gene Expression and CancerR21ES013053 · NIEHS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JIRTLE, RANDY L · 2004 to 2006
$458k
NCI NIH HHS CA25951NCI NIH HHS R01 CA025951NIEHS NIH HHS ES013053NIEHS NIH HHS ES08823NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES008823NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES013053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic imprinting results in monoallelic gene transcription that is directed by cis-acting regulatory elements epigenetically marked in a parent-of-origin-dependent manner. We performed phylogenetic sequence and epigenetic comparisons of IGF2 between the nonimprinted platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) and imprinted opossum (Didelphis virginiana), mouse (Mus musculus), and human (Homo sapiens) to determine if their divergent imprint status would reflect differences in the conservation of genomic elements important in the regulation of imprinting. We report herein that IGF2 imprinting does not correlate evolutionarily with differential intragenic methylation, nor is it associated with motif 13, a reported IGF2-specific "imprint signature" located in the coding region. Instead, IGF2 imprinting is strongly associated with both the lack of short interspersed transposable elements (SINEs) and an intragenic conserved inverted repeat that contains candidate CTCF-binding sites, a role not previously ascribed to this particular sequence element. Our results are the first to demonstrate that comparative footprint analysis of species from evolutionarily distant mammalian clades, and exhibiting divergent imprint status is a powerful bioinformatics-based approach for identifying cis-acting elements potentially involved not only in the origins of genomic imprinting, but also in its maintenance in humans.

Indexed as

DNA FootprintingGenomic ImprintingPhylogenyRNA, UntranslatedAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsBase SequenceBiological EvolutionDNA MethylationHumansInsulin-Like Growth Factor IIInterspersed Repetitive SequencesMiceMolecular Sequence DataOpossumsPlatypusInsulin-Like Growth Factor IIRNA, UntranslatedTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID15342558
PMCPMC515318
OpenAlexW2139399489

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.