ArticleOpen biology2018
Entering the post-epigenomic age: back to epigenetics.
Article in Open biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is undeniably one of the greatest findings in biology that (with some very minor exceptions) every cell in the body possesses the whole genetic information needed to generate a complete individual. Today, this concept has been so thoroughly assimilated that we struggle to still see how surprising this finding actually was: all cellular phenotypes naturally occurring in one person are generated from genetic uniformity, and thus are per definition epigenetic. Transcriptional mechanisms are clearly critical for developing and protecting cell identities, because a mis-expression of few or even single genes can efficiently induce inappropriate cellular programmes. However, how transcriptional activities are molecularly controlled and which of the many known epigenomic features have causal roles remains unclear. Today, clarification of this issue is more pressing than ever because profiling efforts and epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) continuously provide comprehensive datasets depicting epigenomic differences between tissues and disease states. In this commentary, we propagate the idea of a widespread follow-up use of epigenome editing technology in EWAS studies. This would enable them to address the questions of which features, where in the genome, and which circumstances are essential to shape development and trigger disease states.
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.