Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29980793›Full record

ReviewHeredity2018

Quantitative epigenetics and evolution.

Joshua A Banta, Christina L Richards

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heredity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. A generalised approach to the study and understanding of adaptive evolution.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Epigenetics and the success of invasive plants.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua A BantaDepartment of Biology, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, 75799, USA. jbanta@uttyler.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7225-8957
Christina L RichardsDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7848-5165
The University of Texas at Tyler · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epigenetics refers to chemical modifications of chromatin or transcribed DNA that can influence gene activity and expression without changes in DNA sequence. The last 20 years have yielded breakthroughs in our understanding of epigenetic processes that impact many fields of biology. In this review, we discuss how epigenetics relates to quantitative genetics and evolution. We argue that epigenetics is important for quantitative genetics because: (1) quantitative genetics is increasingly being combined with genomics, and therefore we should expand our thinking to include cellular-level mechanisms that can account for phenotypic variance and heritability besides just those that are hard-coded in the DNA sequence; and (2) epigenetic mechanisms change how phenotypic variance is partitioned, and can thereby change the heritability of traits and how those traits are inherited. To explicate these points, we show that epigenetics can influence all aspects of the phenotypic variance formula: V

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEpigenesis, GeneticGenetic VariationAnimalsHumansInheritance PatternsPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID29980793
PMCPMC6082842
OpenAlexW2864687363

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.