Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24709821›Full record

ArticleGenome research2014

Comparative epigenomics in distantly related teleost species identifies conserved cis-regulatory nodes active during the vertebrate phylotypic period.

Juan J Tena, Cristina González-Aguilera, Ana Fernández-Miñán, Javier Vázquez-Marín, Helena Parra-Acero, Joe W Cross, Peter W J Rigby, Jaime J Carvajal, Joachim Wittbrodt, José L Gómez-Skarmeta and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The revolutionary developmental biology of Wilhelm His, Sr.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  9. Theories, laws, and models in evo-devo.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evolutionary emergence of theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    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

11 authors.

Juan J TenaCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;
Cristina González-AguileraCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;
Ana Fernández-MiñánCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;
Javier Vázquez-MarínCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;
Helena Parra-AceroCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;
Joe W CrossDivision of Cancer Biology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JB, United Kingdom;
Peter W J RigbyDivision of Cancer Biology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JB, United Kingdom;
Jaime J CarvajalCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain; Division of Cancer Biology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JB, United Kingdom;
Joachim WittbrodtCentre for Organismal Studies, COS, University of Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
José L Gómez-SkarmetaCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;
Juan R Martínez-MoralesCentro Andaluz de Biología del Desarrollo (CSIC/UPO/JA), 41013 Sevilla, Spain;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complex relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny has been the subject of attention and controversy since von Baer's formulations in the 19th century. The classic concept that embryogenesis progresses from clade general features to species-specific characters has often been revisited. It has become accepted that embryos from a clade show maximum morphological similarity at the so-called phylotypic period (i.e., during mid-embryogenesis). According to the hourglass model, body plan conservation would depend on constrained molecular mechanisms operating at this period. More recently, comparative transcriptomic analyses have provided conclusive evidence that such molecular constraints exist. Examining cis-regulatory architecture during the phylotypic period is essential to understand the evolutionary source of body plan stability. Here we compare transcriptomes and key epigenetic marks (H3K4me3 and H3K27ac) from medaka (Oryzias latipes) and zebrafish (Danio rerio), two distantly related teleosts separated by an evolutionary distance of 115-200 Myr. We show that comparison of transcriptome profiles correlates with anatomical similarities and heterochronies observed at the phylotypic stage. Through comparative epigenomics, we uncover a pool of conserved regulatory regions (≈700), which are active during the vertebrate phylotypic period in both species. Moreover, we show that their neighboring genes encode mainly transcription factors with fundamental roles in tissue specification. We postulate that these regulatory regions, active in both teleost genomes, represent key constrained nodes of the gene networks that sustain the vertebrate body plan.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticEpigenomicsPhylogenyRegulatory Sequences, Nucleic AcidAnimalsCluster AnalysisFishesGene Expression ProfilingHistonesOrgan SpecificityOryziasSpecies SpecificityTranscription, GeneticVertebratesZebrafishHistones

Identifiers

PMID24709821
PMCPMC4079964

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.