Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27141050›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2016

Maintenance of Epigenetic Information.

Geneviève Almouzni, Howard Cedar

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 172 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Preserving centromere identity: right amounts of CENP-A at the right place and time.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Epigenetics · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Geneviève AlmouzniDepartment of Nuclear Dynamics and Genome Plasticity, Institut Curie, Section de recherche, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France.
Howard CedarDepartment of Developmental Biology and Cancer Research, Institute for Medical Research Israel-Canada, Hebrew University Medical School, Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel 91120.
Dynamique du noyau · FRHebrew University of Jerusalem · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genome is subject to a diverse array of epigenetic modifications from DNA methylation to histone posttranslational changes. Many of these marks are somatically stable through cell division. This article focuses on our knowledge of the mechanisms governing the inheritance of epigenetic marks, particularly, repressive ones, when the DNA and chromatin template are duplicated in S phase. This involves the action of histone chaperones, nucleosome-remodeling enzymes, histone and DNA methylation binding proteins, and chromatin-modifying enzymes. Last, the timing of DNA replication is discussed, including the question of whether this constitutes an epigenetic mark that facilitates the propagation of epigenetic marks.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticGene Expression RegulationModels, GeneticDNA MethylationDNA ReplicationHistone ChaperonesHistone CodeProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalHistone Chaperones

Identifiers

PMID27141050
PMCPMC4852805
OpenAlexW2347124524

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.