ReviewHeredity2014
Gene interactions in the evolution of genomic imprinting.
Review in Heredity, 2014. 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.
- Evolution of Gene Expression Across Functional Regions of the Mouse Placenta.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- X chromosome-dependent disruption of placental regulatory networks in hybrid dwarf hamsters.Genetics · 2021Article
- Paternally Expressed Imprinted Genes under Positive Darwinian Selection in Arabidopsis thaliana.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Haplotype analysis of IL-10 gene polymorphism in couples with spontaneous abortions and aborted fetuses.Immunologic research · 2017Article
- Regulatory links between imprinted genes: evolutionary predictions and consequences.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2016Review
- The evolution of sex differences in disease.Biology of sex differences · 2015Article
- Genomic imprinting: theories and data.Heredity · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous evolutionary theories have been developed to explain the epigenetic phenomenon of genomic imprinting. Here, we explore a subset of theories wherein non-additive genetic interactions can favour imprinting. In the simplest genic interaction--the case of underdominance--imprinting can be favoured to hide effectively low-fitness heterozygous genotypes; however, as there is no asymmetry between maternally and paternally inherited alleles in this model, other means of enforcing monoallelic expression may be more plausible evolutionary outcomes than genomic imprinting. By contrast, more successful interaction models of imprinting rely on an asymmetry between the maternally and paternally inherited alleles at a locus that favours the silencing of one allele as a means of coordinating the expression of high-fitness allelic combinations. For example, with interactions between autosomal loci, imprinting functionally preserves high-fitness genotypes that were favoured by selection in the previous generation. In this scenario, once a focal locus becomes imprinted, selection at interacting loci favours a matching imprint. Uniparental transmission generates similar asymmetries for sex chromosomes and cytoplasmic factors interacting with autosomal loci, with selection favouring the expression of either maternal or paternally derived autosomal alleles depending on the pattern of transmission of the uniparentally inherited factor. In a final class of models, asymmetries arise when genes expressed in offspring interact with genes expressed in one of its parents. Under such a scenario, a locus evolves to have imprinted expression in offspring to coordinate the interaction with its parent's genome. We illustrate these models and explore key links and differences using a unified framework.
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.