Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38467791›Full record

ArticleNature genetics2024

Enhancer-promoter interactions become more instructive in the transition from cell-fate specification to tissue differentiation.

Tim Pollex, Adam Rabinowitz, Maria Cristina Gambetta, Raquel Marco-Ferreres, Rebecca R Viales, Aleksander Jankowski, Christoph Schaub, Eileen E M Furlong

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Tim PollexEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5669-3940
Adam RabinowitzEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maria Cristina GambettaEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.
Raquel Marco-FerreresEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.
Rebecca R VialesEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.
Aleksander JankowskiEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2212-6224
Christoph SchaubEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3714-0050
Eileen E M FurlongEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Heidelberg, Germany. furlong@embl.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9544-8339
European Molecular Biology Laboratory · DEEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GB

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) SPP 2202EC | EC Seventh Framework Programm | FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (FP7-IDEAS-ERC - Specific Programme & Implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013)) 787611 (DeCRyPT)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To regulate expression, enhancers must come in proximity to their target gene. However, the relationship between the timing of enhancer-promoter (E-P) proximity and activity remains unclear, with examples of uncoupled, anticorrelated and correlated interactions. To assess this, we selected 600 characterized enhancers or promoters with tissue-specific activity in Drosophila embryos and performed Capture-C in FACS-purified myogenic or neurogenic cells during specification and tissue differentiation. This enabled direct comparison between E-P proximity and activity transitioning from OFF-to-ON and ON-to-OFF states across developmental conditions. This showed remarkably similar E-P topologies between specified muscle and neuronal cells, which are uncoupled from activity. During tissue differentiation, many new distal interactions emerge where changes in E-P proximity reflect changes in activity. The mode of E-P regulation therefore appears to change as embryogenesis proceeds, from largely permissive topologies during cell-fate specification to more instructive regulation during terminal tissue differentiation, when E-P proximity is coupled to activation.

Indexed as

Enhancer Elements, GeneticGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalAnimalsCell DifferentiationDrosophilaPromoter Regions, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID38467791
PMCPMC11018526
OpenAlexW4392646895

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.