Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29992283›Full record

ReviewHuman reproduction update2018

Epigenetic regulation in development: is the mouse a good model for the human?

Courtney W Hanna, Hannah Demond, Gavin Kelsey

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human reproduction update, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Long-Term Effects of ART on the Health of the Offspring.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

2 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Courtney W HannaEpigenetics programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Hannah DemondEpigenetics programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Gavin KelseyEpigenetics programme, Babraham Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Babraham Institute · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research Council MR/K011332/1Medical Research Council MR/S000437/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past few years, advances in molecular technologies have allowed unprecedented mapping of epigenetic modifications in gametes and during early embryonic development. This work is allowing a detailed genomic analysis, which for the first time can answer long-standing questions about epigenetic regulation and reprogramming, and highlights differences between mouse and human, the implications of which are only beginning to be explored. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: In this review, we summarise new low-cell molecular methods enabling the interrogation of epigenetic information in gametes and early embryos, the mechanistic insights these have provided, and contrast the findings in mouse and human. SEARCH

methodsRelevant studies were identified by PubMed search. OUTCOMES: We discuss the levels of epigenetic regulation, from DNA modifications to chromatin organisation, during mouse gametogenesis, fertilisation and pre- and post-implantation development. The recently characterised features of the oocyte epigenome highlight its exceptionally unique regulatory landscape. The chromatin organisation and epigenetic landscape of both gametic genomes are rapidly reprogrammed after fertilisation. This extensive epigenetic remodelling is necessary for zygotic genome activation, but the mechanistic link remains unclear. While the vast majority of epigenetic information from the gametes is erased in pre-implantation development, new insights suggest that repressive histone modifications from the oocyte may mediate a novel mechanism of imprinting. To date, the characterisation of epigenetics in human development has been almost exclusively limited to DNA methylation profiling; these data reinforce that the global dynamics are conserved between mouse and human. However, as we look closer, it is becoming apparent that the mechanisms regulating these dynamics are distinct. These early findings emphasise the importance of investigations of fundamental epigenetic mechanisms in both mouse and humans. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Failures in epigenetic regulation have been implicated in human disease and infertility. With increasing maternal age and use of reproductive technologies in countries all over the world, it is becoming ever more important to understand the necessary processes required to establish a developmentally competent embryo. Furthermore, it is essential to evaluate the extent to which these epigenetic patterns are sensitive to such technologies and other adverse environmental exposures.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticMiceAnimalsDNA MethylationEmbryonic DevelopmentFemaleGametogenesisGenomic ImprintingGenomicsGerm CellsHumansInfertilityModels, AnimalPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsProtein Processing, Post-Translational

Identifiers

PMID29992283
PMCPMC6093373
OpenAlexW2867990590

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.