Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24752003›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in obstetrics & gynecology2014

The impact of assisted reproductive technologies on genomic imprinting and imprinting disorders.

Asli Uyar, Emre Seli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology, 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
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Cryopreservation, cryoprotectants, and potential risk of epigenetic alteration.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reports of biochemistry & molecular biology · 2020
    Article
  9. Roles of steroid hormones in oviductal functionReproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Epigenetics and Neurological Disorders in ART.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. How Does Reprogramming to Pluripotency Affect Genomic Imprinting?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. [Blighted ovum in subfertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2017
    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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Asli UyaraDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA bDepartment of Computer Engineering, Okan University, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey.
Emre Seli
Yale University · US

Funding

Regulation of maternal mRNA translation during early developmentR01HD059909 · NICHD · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SELI, EMRE UTKU · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD059909NICHD NIH HHS R01HD059909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewGenomic imprinting refers to preferential allele-specific gene expression. DNA methylation-based molecular mechanisms regulate establishment and maintenance of parental imprints during early embryo development and gametogenesis. Because of the coincident timing, a potential association between assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures and imprinting defects has been investigated in various studies. In this review, we provide an overview of genomic imprinting and present a summary of the relevant clinical data. RECENT

findingsART procedures affect DNA methylation pattern, parental imprinting status, and imprinted gene expression in the mouse embryo. In humans, several case series suggested an association between ART and imprinting disorders, with a three-fold to six-fold higher prevalence of ART use among children born with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome compared to the general population. However, more recent studies failed to support these findings and could not demonstrate an association between imprinting disorders and ARTs, independent of subfertility. SUMMARY: ART procedures may affect methylation status of imprinted regions in the DNA, leading to imprinting disorders. Although the low prevalence of imprinting disorders makes it challenging to perform conclusive clinical trials, further studies in large registries are required to determine the real impact of ARTs on their occurrence.

Indexed as

Reproductive Techniques, AssistedAnimalsBeckwith-Wiedemann SyndromeDNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleGenomic ImprintingHumansInfant, NewbornInfertilityMaleMicePregnancyRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID24752003
PMCPMC4123998
OpenAlexW2058986394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.