Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25731764›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2015

Dosage compensation in mammals.

Neil Brockdorff, Bryan M Turner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing 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

79 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Neil BrockdorffDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Oxford Oxford OX1 3QU, United Kingdom.
Bryan M TurnerSchool of Cancer Sciences, Institute of Biomedical Research, University of Birmingham Medical School, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 103768
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many organisms show major chromosomal differences between sexes. In mammals, females have two copies of a large, gene-rich chromosome, the X, whereas males have one X and a small, gene-poor Y. The imbalance in expression of several hundred genes is lethal if not dealt with by dosage compensation. The male-female difference is addressed by silencing of genes on one female X early in development. However, both males and females now have only one active X chromosome. This is compensated by twofold up-regulation of genes on the active X. This complex system continues to provide important insights into mechanisms of epigenetic regulation.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularModels, GeneticAnimalsDosage Compensation, GeneticFemaleGene Expression RegulationMaleSex ChromosomesSex Determination ProcessesX Chromosome Inactivation

Identifiers

PMID25731764
PMCPMC4355265

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.