ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2014
New approaches to manipulating the epigenome.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of epigenetic mechanisms in the long-term effects of early-life adversity and mother-infant relationship on physiology and behavior of offspring in laboratory rats and mice.Developmental psychobiology · 2024Review
- Engram Studies: A Call for Historical, Philosophical, and Sociological Approaches.Advances in neurobiology · 2024Article
- Key transcription factors mediating cocaine-induced plasticity in the nucleus accumbens.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Review
- Epigenetic Deregulation of Apoptosis in Cancers.Cancers · 2021Review
- Opportunities and challenges in psychopharmacology .Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2019Review
- Applications of CRISPR/Cas9 in the Mammalian Central Nervous System.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2017Review
- Epigenetic Advances in Behavioral and Brain Sciences have Relevance for Public Policy.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 2017Article
- Optogenetic Modulation of Intracellular Signalling and Transcription: Focus on Neuronal Plasticity.Journal of experimental neuroscience · 2017Review
- Modern Genome Editing Technologies in Huntington's Disease Research.Journal of Huntington's disease · 2017Review
- Neurocognitive functioning and genetic variation in patients with primary brain tumours.The Lancet. Oncology · 2016Review
- Epigenetic Editing: On the Verge of Reprogramming Gene Expression at Will.Current genetic medicine reports · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cellular processes that control transcription of genetic information are critical for cellular function, and are often implicated in psychiatric and neurological disease states. Among the most critical of these processes are epigenetic mechanisms, which serve to link the cellular environment with genomic material. Until recently our understanding of epigenetic mechanisms has been limited by the lack of tools that can selectively manipulate the epigenome with genetic, cellular, and temporal precision, which in turn diminishes the potential impact of epigenetic processes as therapeutic targets. This review highlights an emerging suite of tools that enable robust yet selective interrogation of the epigenome. In addition to allowing site-specific epigenetic editing, these tools can be paired with optogenetic approaches to provide temporal control over epigenetic processes, allowing unparalleled insight into the function of these mechanisms. This improved control promises to revolutionize our understanding of epigenetic modifications in human health and disease states.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25364285PMC4214177W1452236972What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.