Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29202112›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in toxicology2017

Epigenetic effects of environmental chemicals: insights from zebrafish.

Neelakanteswar Aluru

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Youth in the study of comparative physiology: insights from demography in the wild.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. OXIDATIVE STRESS IN REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY.Current opinion in toxicology · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Translational Toxicology in Zebrafish.Current opinion in toxicology
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neelakanteswar AluruBiology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution · US

Funding

WHCOHH: Harmful algal bloom dynamics and epigenetic mechanism of toxin actionP01ES021923 · NIEHS · WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION · PI STEGEMAN, JOHN J · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
Role of de novo DNMTs in Toxicant Induced Alterations in DNA MethylationR01ES024915 · NIEHS · WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION · PI ALURU, NEELAKANTESWAR · 2015 to 2019
$2.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS P01 ES021923NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES024915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zebrafish have been extensively used for studying vertebrate development and modeling human diseases such as cancer. In the last two decades, they have also emerged as an important model for developmental toxicology research and, more recently, for studying the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD). It is widely recognized that epigenetic mechanisms mediate the persistent effects of exposure to chemicals during sensitive windows of development. There is considerable interest in understanding the epigenetic mechanisms associated with DOHaD using zebrafish as a model system. This review summarizes our current knowledge on the effects of environmental chemicals on DNA methylation, histone modifications and noncoding RNAs in the context of DOHaD, and suggest some key considerations in designing experiments for characterizating the mechanisms of action.

Indexed as

DNA methylationDNMTsnoncoding RNAsnon-mammalian modelzebrafish

Identifiers

PMID29202112
PMCPMC5703436
OpenAlexW2735742223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.