ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNA
Sex and the basal mRNA synthesis machinery.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for the Application of Sex and Gender Medicine in Preclinical, Epidemiological and Clinical Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- X-chromosome inactivation patterns depend on age and tissue but not conception method in humans.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2023Article
- The HNRNPF/H RNA binding proteins and disease.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNAReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Evolution and change generated an incredible diversity of organisms on this earth. Yet, some processes are so central to life that change is strongly selected against. Synthesis of the eukaryotic messenger RNA is one example. The assemblies that carry out transcription and processing (capping, polyadenylation, and splicing) are so conserved that most genes have recognizable orthologs in yeast and humans. Naturally, most would conclude transcription and processing are identical in both sexes. However, this is an assumption. Men and women vastly differ in their physiologies. The incidence of pathologies, symptom presentation, disease outcome, and therapeutic response in each sex vary enormously. Despite the harm ignorance causes women, biological research has been historically carried out without regard to sex. The male mouse was the default mammal. A cultured cell's sex was considered irrelevant. Attempts to fill this knowledge gap have revealed molecular dissimilarities. For example, the earliest embryonic male and female transcriptomes differ long before fetal sex hormones appear. We used public data to challenge the assumption of sameness by reviewing reports of sex-biased gene expression and gene targeting. We focused on 120 genes encoding nonregulatory proteins involved in mRNA synthesis. Remarkably, genes with recognizable orthologs in yeast and thus LEAST likely to differ, did differ between the sexes. The rapidly growing public databases can be used to compare the expression of any gene in male and female tissues. Appreciating the principles that drive sex differences will enrich our understanding of RNA biology in all humans-men and women. This article is categorized under: RNA in Disease and Development > RNA in Development RNA Evolution and Genomics > Computational Analyses of RNA.
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.