Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34828310›Full record

ReviewGenes2021

Epigenetic Mechanisms of ART-Related Imprinting Disorders: Lessons From iPSC and Mouse Models.

Alex Horánszky, Jessica L Becker, Melinda Zana, Anne C Ferguson-Smith, András Dinnyés

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Epigenetics of oogenesis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025
    Review
  7. SpermThe world journal of men's health · 2024
    Article
  8. Does SpermBiomedicines · 2024
    Review
  9. Long-Term Effects of ART on the Health of the Offspring.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alex HoránszkyBioTalentum Ltd., H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary.
Jessica L BeckerDepartment of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8217-1385
Melinda ZanaBioTalentum Ltd., H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-5725-1300
Anne C Ferguson-SmithDepartment of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK.
András DinnyésBioTalentum Ltd., H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-3791-2583
Magyar Agrár- és Élettudományi Egyetem · HUUniversity of Cambridge · GBBioTalentum (Hungary) · HU

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/B/04919Medical Research Council G0400156Medical Research Council G0701196Medical Research Council G9723500Medical Research Council MR/J001597/1Medical Research Council MR/R009791/1Wellcome Trust 210757/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising frequency of ART-conceived births is accompanied by the need for an improved understanding of the implications of ART on gametes and embryos. Increasing evidence from mouse models and human epidemiological data suggests that ART procedures may play a role in the pathophysiology of certain imprinting disorders (IDs), including Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, Silver-Russell syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Angelman syndrome. The underlying molecular basis of this association, however, requires further elucidation. In this review, we discuss the epigenetic and imprinting alterations of in vivo mouse models and human iPSC models of ART. Mouse models have demonstrated aberrant regulation of imprinted genes involved with ART-related IDs. In the past decade, iPSC technology has provided a platform for patient-specific cellular models of culture-associated perturbed imprinting. However, despite ongoing efforts, a deeper understanding of the susceptibility of iPSCs to epigenetic perturbation is required if they are to be reliably used for modelling ART-associated IDs. Comparing the patterns of susceptibility of imprinted genes in mouse models and IPSCs in culture improves the current understanding of the underlying mechanisms of ART-linked IDs with implications for our understanding of the influence of environmental factors such as culture and hormone treatments on epigenetically important regions of the genome such as imprints.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleGenetic Diseases, InbornGenomic ImprintingHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMaleMiceModels, AnimalPregnancyReproductive Techniques, Assistedassisted reproductive technologyDNA methylationgenomic imprintingimprinting disordersiPSCsmouse models

Identifiers

PMID34828310
PMCPMC8620286
OpenAlexW3209268312

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.