Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21647603›Full record

ReviewHuman genetics2011

XCI in preimplantation mouse and human embryos: first there is remodelling….

I M van den Berg, R J Galjaard, J S E Laven, J H van Doorninck

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human genetics, 2011. 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
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Dental Pulp-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Modeling Genetic Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Searching for naïve human pluripotent stem cells.World journal of stem cells · 2015
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I M van den BergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Subdivision of Reproductive Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
R J Galjaard
J S E Laven
J H van Doorninck
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Female eutherians silence one of their X chromosomes to accomplish an equal dose of X-linked gene expression compared with males. The mouse is the most widely used animal model in XCI research and has proven to be of great significance for understanding the complex mechanism of X-linked dosage compensation. Although the basic principles of XCI are similar in mouse and humans, differences exist in the timing of XCI initiation, the genetic elements involved in XCI regulation and the form of XCI in specific tissues. Therefore, the mouse has its limitations as a model to understand early human XCI and analysis of human tissues is required. In this review, we describe these differences with respect to initiation of XCI in human and mouse preimplantation embryos, the extra-embryonic tissues and the in vitro model of the epiblast: the embryonic stem cells.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlastocystEmbryonic Stem CellsExtraembryonic MembranesFemaleGenomic ImprintingGerm LayersHumansMaleMiceModels, BiologicalPlacentaPregnancyX Chromosome Inactivation

Identifiers

PMID21647603
PMCPMC3132436
OpenAlexW2130786223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.