Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31328632›Full record

ReviewEpigenetics

Epigenetic changes and assisted reproductive technologies.

Sneha Mani, Jayashri Ghosh, Christos Coutifaris, Carmen Sapienza, Monica Mainigi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epigenetics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. New insights into the (epi)genetics of twinning.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

20 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

5 authors.

Sneha ManiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0384-8907
Jayashri GhoshFels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4929-5829
Christos CoutifarisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Carmen SapienzaFels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Monica MainigiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3306-4791

Funding

Translational Research Support CoreP30ES013508 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Trevor M Penning · 2006 to 2026
$35.3M
Research Project 4: Epigenetic Regulation of Retrotransposon Silencing and Male Fertility in the MouseP50HD068157 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MONICA AILAWADI MAINIGI · 2014 to 2026
$16.3M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD068157NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES013508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) are at moderately increased risk for a number of undesirable outcomes, including low birth weight. Whether the additional risk is associated with specific procedures used in ART or biological factors that are intrinsic to infertility has been the subject of much debate, as has the mechanism by which ART or infertility might influence this risk. The potential effect of ART clinical and laboratory procedures on the gamete and embryo epigenomes heads the list of mechanistic candidates that might explain the association between ART and undesirable clinical outcomes. The reason for this focus is that the developmental time points at which ART clinical and laboratory procedures are implemented are precisely the time points at which large-scale reorganization of the epigenome takes place during normal development. In this manuscript, we review the many human studies comparing the epigenomes of ART children with children conceived in vivo, as well as assess the potential of individual ART clinical and laboratory procedures to alter the epigenome.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticAnimalsFemaleHumansPlacentaPregnancyReproductive Techniques, AssistedARTepigenomeIVFmethylationprogramming

Identifiers

PMID31328632
PMCPMC6961665

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.