ArticleClinical epigenetics2022
A critical appraisal of clinical epigenetics.
Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between lifetime history of depression, prenatal OXTR DNA methylation and breastfeeding outcomes.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Observational
- No indications of weight gain associated DNA methylation changes in patients with anorexia nervosa.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a novel cell type estimation method for targeted bisulfite sequencing data.Epigenomics · 2025Article
- The COVID-19 legacy: consequences for the human DNA methylome and therapeutic perspectives.GeroScience · 2025Review
- Enacting biosocial complexity: Stress, epigenetic biomarkers and the tools of postgenomics.Social studies of science · 2024Article
- Engram Studies: A Call for Historical, Philosophical, and Sociological Approaches.Advances in neurobiology · 2024Article
- Coping with extreme heat: current exposure and implications for the future.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2024Review
- In medio stat virtus? A reply to Dupras.Epigenetics communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern epigenetics emerged about 40 years ago. Since then, the field has rapidly grown. Unfortunately, this development has been accompanied by certain misconceptions and methodological shortcomings. A profound misconception is that chromatin modifications are a distinct layer of gene regulation that is directly responsive to the environment and potentially heritable between generations. This view ignores the fact that environmental factors affect gene expression mainly through signaling cascades and the activation or repression of transcription factors, which recruit chromatin regulators. The epigenome is mainly shaped by the DNA sequence and by transcription. Methodological shortcomings include the insufficient consideration of genetic variation and cell mixture distribution. Mis- and overinterpretation of epigenetic data foster genetic denialism ("We can control our genes") and epigenetic determinism ("You are what your parents ate"). These erroneous beliefs can be overcome by using precise definitions, by raising the awareness about methodological pitfalls and by returning to the basic facts in molecular and cellular biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.