ArticleMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2005
Genetic and parent-of-origin influences on X chromosome choice in Xce heterozygous mice.
Article in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Escape from X inactivation drives sex differences in gene expression.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Complexities of X chromosome inactivation status in female human induced pluripotent stem cells-a brief review and scientific update for autism research.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2016Review
- The Role of X-Chromosome Inactivation in Retinal Development and Disease.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2016Article
- Sex-Specific Parental Effects on Offspring Lipid Levels.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2015Article
- Known unknowns for allele-specific expression and genomic imprinting effects.F1000prime reports · 2014Review
- Genetic architecture of skewed X inactivation in the laboratory mouse.PLoS genetics · 2013Article
- An ex vivo model for imprinting: mutually exclusive binding of Cdx2 and Oct4 as a switch for imprinted and random X-inactivation.Genetics · 2012Article
- Nonrandom X chromosome inactivation is influenced by multiple regions on the murine X chromosome.Genetics · 2012Article
- Sex-specific parent-of-origin allelic expression in the mouse brain.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2010Article
- X-inactivation analysis of embryonic lethality in Ocrl wt/-; Inpp5b-/- mice.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2010Article
- Paternally biased X inactivation in mouse neonatal brain.Genome biology · 2010Article
- Defining the cause of skewed X-chromosome inactivation in X-linked mental retardation by use of a mouse model.American journal of human genetics · 2007Article
- X chromosome-inactivation patterns of 1,005 phenotypically unaffected females.American journal of human genetics · 2006Article
- Genetic control of X chromosome inactivation in mice: definition of the Xce candidate interval.Genetics · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
X chromosome inactivation is unique among dosage compensation mechanisms in that the two X chromosomes in females are treated differently within the same cell; one X chromosome is stably silenced while the other remains active. It is widely believed that, when X inactivation is initiated, each cell makes a random choice of which X chromosome will be silenced. In mice, only one genetic locus, the X-linked X controlling element (X ce), is known to influence this choice, because animals that are heterozygous at X ce have X-inactivation patterns that differ markedly from a mean of 0.50. To document other genetic and epigenetic influences on choice, we have performed a population-based study of the effect of X ce genotype on X-inactivation patterns. In B 6 CAST F(1) females (X ce(b)/X ce(c)), the X-inactivation pattern followed a symmetric distribution with a mean of 0.29 (SD=0.08). Surprisingly, however, in a population of X ce(b)/X ce(c) heterozygous B 6 CAST F(2) females, we observed significant differences in both the mean (p=0.004) and variance (p=0.004) of the X-inactivation patterns. This finding is incompatible with a single-locus model and suggests that additional genetic factors also influence X chromosome choice. We show that both parent-of-origin and naturally occurring genetic variation at autosomal loci contribute to these differences. Taken together, these data reveal further genetic complexity in this epigenetic control pathway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16245026What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.