Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31323466›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2019

Chromatin folding and nuclear architecture: PRC1 function in 3D.

Robert S Illingworth

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Physical models reveal indirect reader protein interactions that facilitate epigenetic crosstalk.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Technological advances in probing 4D genome organization.Current opinion in cell biology · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Robert S IllingworthMRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Institute for Regeneration and Repair, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh BioQuarter, 5 Little France Drive, Edinburgh, EH16 4UU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: robert.illingworth@ed.ac.uk.
MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K017047/1Medical Research Council MR/S007644/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Embryonic development requires the intricate balance between the expansion and specialisation of defined cell types in time and space. The gene expression programmes that underpin this balance are regulated, in part, by modulating the chemical and structural state of chromatin. Polycomb repressive complexes (PRCs), a family of essential developmental regulators, operate at this level to stabilise or perpetuate a repressed but transcriptionally poised chromatin configuration. This dynamic state is required to control the timely initiation of productive gene transcription during embryonic development. The two major PRCs cooperate to target the genome, but it is PRC1 that appears to be the primary effector that controls gene expression. In this review I will discuss recent findings relating to how PRC1 alters chromatin accessibility, folding and global 3D nuclear organisation to control gene transcription.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationGenomeAnimalsCell NucleusChromatinHistonesHumansPolycomb-Group ProteinsChromatinHistonesPolycomb-Group Proteins

Identifiers

PMID31323466
PMCPMC6859790
OpenAlexW2959955377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.