Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22821278›Full record

ReviewMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2012

A survey of tissue-specific genomic imprinting in mammals.

Adam R Prickett, Rebecca J Oakey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Imprinted Genes and Multiple Sclerosis: What Do We Know?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mother-child transmission of epigenetic information by tunable polymorphic imprinting.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Adam R PrickettDepartment of Medical and Molecular Genetics, King's College London, 8th Floor Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Rebecca J Oakey

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/08/051/25748Medical Research Council G1001689Wellcome Trust 085448/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In mammals, most somatic cells contain two copies of each autosomal gene, one inherited from each parent. When a gene is expressed, both parental alleles are usually transcribed. However, a subset of genes is subject to the epigenetic silencing of one of the parental copies by genomic imprinting. In this review, we explore the evidence for variability in genomic imprinting between different tissue and cell types. We also consider why the imprinting of particular genes may be restricted to, or lost in, specific tissues and discuss the potential for high-throughput sequencing technologies in facilitating the characterisation of tissue-specific imprinting and assaying the potentially functional variations in epigenetic marks.

Indexed as

Genomic ImprintingAllelesAnimalsGRB10 Adaptor ProteinHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMammalsOrgan SpecificityGRB10 Adaptor Protein

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.