Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31896690›Full record

ReviewGenes & development2020

Genomic imprinting in plants-revisiting existing models.

Rita A Batista, Claudia Köhler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes & development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 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

2 authors.

Rita A BatistaDepartment of Plant Biology, Uppsala BioCenter, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Linnean Centre for Plant Biology, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden.
Claudia KöhlerDepartment of Plant Biology, Uppsala BioCenter, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Linnean Centre for Plant Biology, Uppsala SE-750 07, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic imprinting is an epigenetic phenomenon leading to parentally biased gene expression. Throughout the years, extensive efforts have been made to characterize the epigenetic marks underlying imprinting in animals and plants. As a result, DNA methylation asymmetries between parental genomes emerged as the primary factor controlling the imprinting status of many genes. Nevertheless, the data accumulated so far suggest that this process cannot solely explain the imprinting of all genes. In this review, we revisit the current models explaining imprinting regulation in plants, and discuss novel regulatory mechanisms that could function independently of parental DNA methylation asymmetries in the establishment of imprinting.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticDNA MethylationGenomic ImprintingPlantsDNA methylationgenomic imprintingplantsPolycomb group proteins

Identifiers

PMID31896690
PMCPMC6938664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.