Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36555801›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Effect of Superovulation Treatment on Oocyte's DNA Methylation.

Jordana S Lopes, Elena Ivanova, Salvador Ruiz, Simon Andrews, Gavin Kelsey, Pilar Coy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics reveal mTOR-driven cellular fate of spindle cells and immune evasion in classic Kaposi's sarcoma.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jordana S LopesPhysiology of Reproduction Group, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8419-7845
Elena IvanovaEpigenetics Programme, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge CB22 3AT, UK.
Salvador RuizPhysiology of Reproduction Group, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5713-485X
Simon AndrewsBioinformatics Group, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge CB22 3AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5006-3507
Gavin KelseyEpigenetics Programme, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge CB22 3AT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9762-5634
Pilar CoyPhysiology of Reproduction Group, Department of Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3943-1890
Babraham Institute · GBInstituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria · ES

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K011332/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlled ovarian stimulation is a necessary step in some assisted reproductive procedures allowing a higher collection of female gametes. However, consequences of this stimulation for the gamete or the offspring have been shown in several mammals. Most studies used comparisons between oocytes from different donors, which may contribute to different responses. In this work, we use the bovine model in which each animal serves as its own control. DNA methylation profiles were obtained by single-cell whole-genome bisulfite sequencing of oocytes from pre-ovulatory unstimulated follicles compared to oocytes from stimulated follicles. Results show that the global percentage of methylation was similar between groups, but the percentage of methylation was lower for non-stimulated oocytes in the imprinted genes APEG3, MEG3, and MEG9 and higher in TSSC4 when compared to stimulated oocytes. Differences were also found in CGI of imprinted genes: higher methylation was found among non-stimulated oocytes in MEST (PEG1), IGF2R, GNAS (SCG6), KvDMR1 ICR UMD, and IGF2. In another region around IGF2, the methylation percentage was lower for non-stimulated oocytes when compared to stimulated oocytes. Data drawn from this study might help to understand the molecular reasons for the appearance of certain syndromes in assisted reproductive technologies-derived offspring.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationSuperovulationAnimalsCattleFemaleGenomic ImprintingMammalsOocytesReproductive Techniques, AssistedARTDNA methylationepigeneticsoocyteovarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36555801
PMCPMC9785075
OpenAlexW4312212184

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.