ArticleChromosoma2010
Difference between random and imprinted X inactivation in common voles.
Article in Chromosoma, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Sex-Specific Placental Responses in Fetal Development.Endocrinology · 2015Review
- Dynamics of the two heterochromatin types during imprinted X chromosome inactivation in vole Microtus levis.PloS one · 2014Article
- Placental contribution to the origins of sexual dimorphism in health and diseases: sex chromosomes and epigenetics.Biology of sex differences · 2013Article
- Article
- Variability of sequence surrounding the Xist gene in rodents suggests taxon-specific regulation of X chromosome inactivation.PloS one · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
During early development in female mammals, most genes on one of the two X-chromosomes undergo transcriptional silencing. In the extraembryonic lineages of some eutherian species, imprinted X-inactivation of the paternal X-chromosome occurs. In the cells of the embryo proper, the choice of the future inactive X-chromosome is random. We mapped several genes on the X-chromosomes of five common vole species and compared their expression and methylation patterns in somatic and extraembryonic tissues, where random and imprinted X-inactivation occurs, respectively. In extraembryonic tissues, more genes were expressed on the inactive X-chromosome than in somatic tissues. We also found that the methylation status of the X-linked genes was always in accordance with their expression pattern in somatic, but not in extraembryonic tissues. The data provide new evidence that imprinted X-inactivation is less complete and/or stable than the random form and DNA methylation contributes less to its maintenance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.