Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28202034›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2017

Transcriptomic signatures shaped by cell proportions shed light on comparative developmental biology.

Sophie Pantalacci, Laurent Guéguen, Coraline Petit, Anne Lambert, Renata Peterkovà, Marie Sémon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. PRX1-positive mesenchymal stem cells drive molar morphogenesis.International journal of oral science · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. System-level analyses of keystone genes required for mammalian tooth development.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Transcriptional correlates of proximal-distal identify and regeneration timing in axolotl limbs.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sophie PantalacciUnivLyon, ENS de Lyon, Univ Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratoire de Biologie et Modélisation de la Cellule, 15 parvis Descartes, F-69007, Lyon, France. sophie.pantalacci@ens-lyon.fr.
Laurent GuéguenLaboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive (LBBE), Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, Villeurbanne, France.
Coraline PetitUnivLyon, ENS de Lyon, Univ Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratoire de Biologie et Modélisation de la Cellule, 15 parvis Descartes, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Anne LambertUnivLyon, ENS de Lyon, Univ Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratoire de Biologie et Modélisation de la Cellule, 15 parvis Descartes, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Renata PeterkovàDepartment of Teratology, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Academy of Sciences AS CR, Videnska 1083, 142 20, Prague, Czech Republic.
Marie SémonUnivLyon, ENS de Lyon, Univ Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratoire de Biologie et Modélisation de la Cellule, 15 parvis Descartes, F-69007, Lyon, France. marie.semon@ens-lyon.fr.
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRCzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Experimental Medicine · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative transcriptomics can answer many questions in developmental and evolutionary developmental biology. Most transcriptomic studies start by showing global patterns of variation in transcriptomes that differ between species or organs through developmental time. However, little is known about the kinds of expression differences that shape these patterns.

resultsWe compared transcriptomes during the development of two morphologically distinct serial organs, the upper and lower first molars of the mouse. We found that these two types of teeth largely share the same gene expression dynamics but that three major transcriptomic signatures distinguish them, all of which are shaped by differences in the relative abundance of different cell types. First, lower/upper molar differences are maintained throughout morphogenesis and stem from differences in the relative abundance of mesenchyme and from constant differences in gene expression within tissues. Second, there are clear time-shift differences in the transcriptomes of the two molars related to cusp tissue abundance. Third, the transcriptomes differ most during early-mid crown morphogenesis, corresponding to exaggerated morphogenetic processes in the upper molar involving fewer mitotic cells but more migrating cells. From these findings, we formulate hypotheses about the mechanisms enabling the two molars to reach different phenotypes. We also successfully applied our approach to forelimb and hindlimb development.

conclusionsGene expression in a complex tissue reflects not only transcriptional regulation but also abundance of different cell types. This knowledge provides valuable insights into the cellular processes underpinning differences in organ development. Our approach should be applicable to most comparative developmental contexts.

Indexed as

Developmental BiologyGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalTranscriptomeAnimalsEpitheliumFemaleMaleMesodermMiceMolarMorphogenesisMosaicismOrganogenesisSignal TransductionComparative transcriptomicsDevelopmental biologyHeterochronySerial homologyTemporal dynamics of gene expressionToothTranscriptomic signature

Identifiers

PMID28202034
PMCPMC5312534
OpenAlexW2588046846

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.