Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24586114›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2014

Developmental programming mediated by complementary roles of imprinted Grb10 in mother and pup.

Michael Cowley, Alastair S Garfield, Marta Madon-Simon, Marika Charalambous, Richard W Clarkson, Matthew J Smalley, Howard Kendrick, Anthony R Isles, Aled J Parry, Sara Carney and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Livestock species as emerging models for genomic imprinting.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Genomic imprinting and its effects on postnatal growth and adult metabolism.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michael CowleyDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom ; Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alastair S GarfieldDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom ; Department of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Marta Madon-SimonDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Marika CharalambousDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Richard W ClarksonCardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Matthew J SmalleyEuropean Cancer Stem Cell Research Institute, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Biomedical Sciences Building, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Howard KendrickEuropean Cancer Stem Cell Research Institute, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Biomedical Sciences Building, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Anthony R IslesBehavioural Genetics Group, MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics, Neuroscience and Mental Health Research Institute, Schools of Medicine and Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Aled J ParryDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Sara CarneyDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Rebecca J OakeyDepartment of Medical & Molecular Genetics, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lora K HeislerDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kim MoorwoodDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Jason B WolfDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
Andrew WardDepartment of Biology & Biochemistry and Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
University of Bath · GBCardiff University · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/C516936/1Breast Cancer Now 2012MAYPR076British Heart Foundation PG/11/52/28989Cancer Research UK 15938Medical Research Council G0300415Medical Research Council G9225018Medical Research Council MR/J003417/1Medical Research Council MR/L007215/1Wellcome Trust 085448/Z/08/ZWellcome Trust 098012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Developmental programming links growth in early life with health status in adulthood. Although environmental factors such as maternal diet can influence the growth and adult health status of offspring, the genetic influences on this process are poorly understood. Using the mouse as a model, we identify the imprinted gene Grb10 as a mediator of nutrient supply and demand in the postnatal period. The combined actions of Grb10 expressed in the mother, controlling supply, and Grb10 expressed in the offspring, controlling demand, jointly regulate offspring growth. Furthermore, Grb10 determines the proportions of lean and fat tissue during development, thereby influencing energy homeostasis in the adult. Most strikingly, we show that the development of normal lean/fat proportions depends on the combined effects of Grb10 expressed in the mother, which has the greater effect on offspring adiposity, and Grb10 expressed in the offspring, which influences lean mass. These distinct functions of Grb10 in mother and pup act complementarily, which is consistent with a coadaptation model of imprinting evolution, a model predicted but for which there is limited experimental evidence. In addition, our findings identify Grb10 as a key genetic component of developmental programming, and highlight the need for a better understanding of mother-offspring interactions at the genetic level in predicting adult disease risk.

Indexed as

AnimalsBody SizeExportin 1 ProteinFemaleGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGenomic ImprintingGRB10 Adaptor ProteinKaryopherinsLactationMiceMice, KnockoutReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearSTAT5 Transcription FactorExportin 1 ProteinGRB10 Adaptor ProteinGrb10 protein, mouseKaryopherinsReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearSTAT5 Transcription Factor

Identifiers

PMID24586114
PMCPMC3934836
OpenAlexW2161532785

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.