ArticleEpigenetics2015
Antagonist Xist and Tsix co-transcription during mouse oogenesis and maternal Xist expression during pre-implantation development calls into question the nature of the maternal imprint on the X chromosome.
Article in Epigenetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- scHiClassifier: a deep learning framework for cell type prediction by fusing multiple feature sets from single-cell Hi-C data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- DNA methylation and functional characterization of the XIST gene duringEpigenetics · 2019Article
- Mutually exclusive sense-antisense transcription at FLC facilitates environmentally induced gene repression.Nature communications · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the first divisions of the female mouse embryo, the paternal X-chromosome is coated by Xist non-coding RNA and gradually silenced. This imprinted X-inactivation principally results from the apposition, during oocyte growth, of an imprint on the X-inactivation master control region: the X-inactivation center (Xic). This maternal imprint of yet unknown nature is thought to prevent Xist upregulation from the maternal X (X(M)) during early female development. In order to provide further insight into the X(M) imprinting mechanism, we applied single-cell approaches to oocytes and pre-implantation embryos at different stages of development to analyze the expression of candidate genes within the Xic. We show that, unlike the situation pertaining in most other cellular contexts, in early-growing oocytes, Xist and Tsix sense and antisense transcription occur simultaneously from the same chromosome. Additionally, during early development, Xist appears to be transiently transcribed from the X(M) in some blastomeres of late 2-cell embryos concomitant with the general activation of the genome indicating that X(M) imprinting does not completely suppress maternal Xist transcription during embryo cleavage stages. These unexpected transcriptional regulations of the Xist locus call for a re-evaluation of the early functioning of the maternal imprint on the X-chromosome and suggest that Xist/Tsix antagonist transcriptional activities may participate in imprinting the maternal locus as described at other loci subject to parental imprinting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.