Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24891518›Full record

ArticleFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology2014

Genome-wide DNA methylation profiling identifies a folate-sensitive region of differential methylation upstream of ZFP57-imprinting regulator in humans.

Manori Amarasekera, David Martino, Sarah Ashley, Hani Harb, Dörthe Kesper, Deborah Strickland, Richard Saffery, Susan L Prescott

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Epigenetics in Precision Nutrition.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Review
  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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Manori AmarasekeraSchool of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia;
David MartinoCancer and Disease Epigenetics Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Centre for Food and Allergy Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
Sarah AshleyCancer and Disease Epigenetics Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Institute for Medical Research, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
Hani HarbInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, Pathobiochemistry, and Molecular Diagnostics, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany; and.
Dörthe KesperInstitute of Laboratory Medicine, Pathobiochemistry, and Molecular Diagnostics, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany; and.
Deborah StricklandTelethon Institute for Child Health Research, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Richard SafferyCancer and Disease Epigenetics Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;
Susan L PrescottSchool of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; susan.prescott@uwa.edu.au.
Philipps University of Marburg · DEUniversity of Western Australia · AUAustralian Food Allergy Foundation · AUMonash University · AUThe Kids Research Institute Australia · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Folate intake during pregnancy may affect the regulation of DNA methylation during fetal development. The genomic regions in the offspring that may be sensitive to folate exposure during in utero development have not been characterized. Using genome-scale profiling, we investigated DNA methylation in 2 immune cell types (CD4(+) and antigen-presenting cells) isolated from neonatal cord blood, selected on the basis of in utero folate exposure. High-folate (HF; n=11) and low-folate (LF; n=12) groups were selected from opposite extremes of maternal serum folate levels measured in the last trimester of pregnancy. A comparison of these groups revealed differential methylation at 7 regions across the genome. By far, the biggest effect observed was hypomethylation of a 923 bp region 3 kb upstream of the ZFP57 transcript, a regulator of DNA methylation during development, observed in both cell types. Levels of H3/H4 acetylation at ZFP57 promoter and ZFP57 mRNA expression were higher in CD4(+) cells in the HF group relative to the LF group. Hypomethylation at this region was replicated in an independent sample set. These data suggest that exposure to folate has effects on the regulation of DNA methylation during fetal development, and this may be important for health and disease.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationGene Expression ProfilingGenome, HumanGenomic ImprintingAdultAntigen-Presenting CellsCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesDNA-Binding ProteinsFemaleFetal BloodFetal DevelopmentFolic AcidHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesInfantMaleDNA-Binding ProteinsFolic AcidRepressor ProteinsRNA, MessengerTranscription FactorsZFP57 protein, humanantigen-presenting cellsdevelopmental programmingepigeneticsneonateT cells

Identifiers

PMID24891518
PMCPMC5395735
OpenAlexW2004824524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.