Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21352525›Full record

ArticleBMC developmental biology2011

Epigenetic reprogramming in the porcine germ line.

Sara M W Hyldig, Nicola Croxall, David A Contreras, Preben D Thomsen, Ramiro Alberio

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC developmental biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Porcine Germ Cells Phenotype during Embryonic and Adult Development.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Current progress onFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Pathways of DNA Demethylation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Epigenetics and transgenerational inheritance in domesticated farm animals.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara M W HyldigDivision of Animal Sciences, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK. ramiro.alberio@nottingham.ac.uk
Nicola Croxall
David A Contreras
Preben D Thomsen
Ramiro Alberio
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpigenetic reprogramming is critical for genome regulation during germ line development. Genome-wide demethylation in mouse primordial germ cells (PGC) is a unique reprogramming event essential for erasing epigenetic memory and preventing the transmission of epimutations to the next generation. In addition to DNA demethylation, PGC are subject to a major reprogramming of histone marks, and many of these changes are concurrent with a cell cycle arrest in the G2 phase. There is limited information on how well conserved these events are in mammals. Here we report on the dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation at CpGs of imprinted loci and DNA repeats, and the global changes in H3K27me3 and H3K9me2 in the developing germ line of the domestic pig.

resultsOur results show loss of DNA methylation in PGC colonizing the genital ridges. Analysis of IGF2-H19 regulatory region showed a gradual demethylation between E22-E42. In contrast, DMR2 of IGF2R was already demethylated in male PGC by E22. In females, IGF2R demethylation was delayed until E29-31, and was de novo methylated by E42. DNA repeats were gradually demethylated from E25 to E29-31, and became de novo methylated by E42. Analysis of histone marks showed strong H3K27me3 staining in migratory PGC between E15 and E21. In contrast, H3K9me2 signal was low in PGC by E15 and completely erased by E21. Cell cycle analysis of gonadal PGC (E22-31) showed a typical pattern of cycling cells, however, migrating PGC (E17) showed an increased proportion of cells in G2.

conclusionsOur study demonstrates that epigenetic reprogramming occurs in pig migratory and gonadal PGC, and establishes the window of time for the occurrence of these events. Reprogramming of histone H3K9me2 and H3K27me3 detected between E15-E21 precedes the dynamic DNA demethylation at imprinted loci and DNA repeats between E22-E42. Our findings demonstrate that major epigenetic reprogramming in the pig germ line follows the overall dynamics shown in mice, suggesting that epigenetic reprogramming of germ cells is conserved in mammals. A better understanding of the sequential reprogramming of PGC in the pig will facilitate the derivation of embryonic germ cells in this species.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticAnimalsCell CycleCpG IslandsFemaleFlow CytometryGenomic ImprintingGerm CellsHistone DemethylasesHistonesMaleMultigene FamilyMutationOctamer Transcription Factor-3Oxidoreductases, N-DemethylatingHistone DemethylasesHistonesOctamer Transcription Factor-3Oxidoreductases, N-DemethylatingReceptor, IGF Type 2

Identifiers

PMID21352525
PMCPMC3051914
OpenAlexW2134022900

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.