Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24985913›Full record

ArticleGenome research2014

DNA replication and transcription programs respond to the same chromatin cues.

Yoav Lubelsky, Joseph A Prinz, Leyna DeNapoli, Yulong Li, Jason A Belsky, David M MacAlpine

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Multi-Scale Imaging of the Dynamic Organization of Chromatin.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yoav LubelskyPharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Joseph A PrinzPharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Leyna DeNapoliPharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Yulong LiPharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Jason A BelskyPharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
David M MacAlpinePharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DONNA NIEDZWIECKI · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Training ProgramT32GM071340 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MAGWENE, PAUL MITAARI · 2005 to 2020
$3.3M
The Systematic Identification and Analysis of Replication Origins in DrosophilaU01HG004279 · NHGRI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MACALPINE, DAVID M · 2007 to 2011
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG004279NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM071340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA replication is a dynamic process that occurs in a temporal order along each of the chromosomes. A consequence of the temporally coordinated activation of replication origins is the establishment of broad domains (>100 kb) that replicate either early or late in S phase. This partitioning of the genome into early and late replication domains is important for maintaining genome stability, gene dosage, and epigenetic inheritance; however, the molecular mechanisms that define and establish these domains are poorly understood. The modENCODE Project provided an opportunity to investigate the chromatin features that define the Drosophila replication timing program in multiple cell lines. The majority of early and late replicating domains in the Drosophila genome were static across all cell lines; however, a small subset of domains was dynamic and exhibited differences in replication timing between the cell lines. Both origin selection and activation contribute to defining the DNA replication program. Our results suggest that static early and late replicating domains were defined at the level of origin selection (ORC binding) and likely mediated by chromatin accessibility. In contrast, dynamic domains exhibited low ORC densities in both cell types, suggesting that origin activation and not origin selection governs the plasticity of the DNA replication program. Finally, we show that the male-specific early replication of the X chromosome is dependent on the dosage compensation complex (DCC), suggesting that the transcription and replication programs respond to the same chromatin cues. Specifically, MOF-mediated hyperacetylation of H4K16 on the X chromosome promotes both the up-regulation of male-specific transcription and origin activation.

Indexed as

CuesDNA ReplicationTranscription, GeneticAcetylationAnimalsCell LineChromatinDNA Replication TimingDrosophilaFemaleHistonesMalePromoter Regions, GeneticReplication OriginX ChromosomeChromatinHistones

Identifiers

PMID24985913
PMCPMC4079966
OpenAlexW1966435085

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.