Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18958286›Full record

ArticlePloS one2008

Patterns of hybrid loss of imprinting reveal tissue- and cluster-specific regulation.

Christopher D Wiley, Harry H Matundan, Amanda R Duselis, Alison T Isaacs, Paul B Vrana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Genomic imprinting, disrupted placental expression, and speciation.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2016
    Article
  7. Parent-of-origin growth effects and the evolution of hybrid inviability in dwarf hamsters.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2014
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Peromyscus as a Mammalian epigenetic model.Genetics research international · 2012
    Article
  11. Chromatin evolution and molecular drive in speciation.International journal of evolutionary biology · 2012
    Article
  12. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher D WileyDepartment of Biological Chemistry, School of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Harry H Matundan
Amanda R Duselis
Alison T Isaacs
Paul B Vrana
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCrosses between natural populations of two species of deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus (BW), and P. polionotus (PO), produce parent-of-origin effects on growth and development. BW females mated to PO males (bwxpo) produce growth-retarded but otherwise healthy offspring. In contrast, PO females mated to BW males (POxBW) produce overgrown and severely defective offspring. The hybrid phenotypes are pronounced in the placenta and include POxBW conceptuses which lack embryonic structures. Evidence to date links variation in control of genomic imprinting with the hybrid defects, particularly in the POxBW offspring. Establishment of genomic imprinting is typically mediated by gametic DNA methylation at sites known as gDMRs. However, imprinted gene clusters vary in their regulation by gDMR sequences. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsHere we further assess imprinted gene expression and DNA methylation at different cluster types in order to discern patterns. These data reveal POxBW misexpression at the Kcnq1ot1 and Peg3 clusters, both of which lose ICR methylation in placental tissues. In contrast, some embryonic transcripts (Peg10, Kcnq1ot1) reactivated the silenced allele with little or no loss of DNA methylation. Hybrid brains also display different patterns of imprinting perturbations. Several cluster pairs thought to use analogous regulatory mechanisms are differentially affected in the hybrids. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These data reinforce the hypothesis that placental and somatic gene regulation differs significantly, as does that between imprinted gene clusters and between species. That such epigenetic regulatory variation exists in recently diverged species suggests a role in reproductive isolation, and that this variation is likely to be adaptive.

Indexed as

Multigene FamilyAnimalsChimeraCrosses, GeneticDNA MethylationEmbryo, MammalianEndopeptidasesFemaleGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGenomic ImprintingKruppel-Like Transcription FactorsMaleModels, BiologicalOrgan SpecificityPeromyscusRNA, Long NoncodingEndopeptidasesKCNQ1OT1 RNAKruppel-Like Transcription FactorsRNA, Long NoncodingRNA, Messenger, StoredRNA, UntranslatedUbiquitin-Specific Proteases

Identifiers

PMID18958286
PMCPMC2570336
OpenAlexW2090570458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.