Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24887417›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2014

Intergenerational genomic DNA methylation patterns in mouse hybrid strains.

Luz D Orozco, Liudmilla Rubbi, Lisa J Martin, Fang Fang, Farhad Hormozdiari, Nam Che, Andrew D Smith, Aldons J Lusis, Matteo Pellegrini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Altered methylation of specific DNA loci in the liver ofFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2017
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luz D Orozco
Liudmilla Rubbi
Lisa J Martin
Fang Fang
Farhad Hormozdiari
Nam Che
Andrew D Smith
Aldons J Lusis
Matteo Pellegrini
University of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Training Grant in Genomic Analysis and InterpretationT32HG002536 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Valerie A Arboleda, Harold Pimentel · 2002 to 2026
$8.6M
Regenerative Musculoskeletal Medicine Training ProgramT32AR059033 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI John S Adams, Nicholas M. Bernthal · 2011 to 2026
$4.8M
DNA methylation and its relationship to gene expression and physiologic traitsR01GM095656 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI PELLEGRINI, MATTEO · 2011 to 2014
$1.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG002536NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR059033NIGMS NIH HHS GM095656-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDNA methylation is a contributing factor to both rare and common human diseases, and plays a major role in development and gene silencing. While the variation of DNA methylation among individuals has been partially characterized, the degree to which methylation patterns are preserved across generations is still poorly understood. To determine the extent of methylation differences between two generations of mice we examined DNA methylation patterns in the livers of eight parental and F1 mice from C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse strains using bisulfite sequencing.

resultsWe find a large proportion of reproducible methylation differences between C57BL/6J and DBA/2J chromosomes in CpGs, which are highly heritable between parent and F1 mice. We also find sex differences in methylation levels in 396 genes, and 11% of these are differentially expressed between females and males. Using a recently developed approach to identify allelically methylated regions independently of genotypic differences, we identify 112 novel putative imprinted genes and microRNAs, and validate imprinting at the RNA level in 10 of these genes.

conclusionsThe majority of DNA methylation differences among individuals are associated with genetic differences, and a much smaller proportion of these epigenetic differences are due to sex, imprinting or stochastic intergenerational effects. Epigenetic differences can be a determining factor in heritable traits and should be considered in association studies for molecular and clinical traits, as we observed that methylation differences in the mouse model are highly heritable and can have functional consequences on molecular traits such as gene expression.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAnimalsChromosomes, MammalianCrosses, GeneticFemaleGenomeGenomic ImprintingHybridization, GeneticLiverMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred DBAMicroRNAsMolecular Sequence DataSequence Analysis, DNAMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID24887417
PMCPMC4076608
OpenAlexW2128270529

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.