Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40181107›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2025

Epigenome dynamics in early mammalian embryogenesis.

Adam Burton, Maria-Elena Torres-Padilla

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Embracing non-linearity in human ageing.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Probing RNA-protein interactions in the early mouse embryo.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Histone Modifications in Mammalian Early Embryos.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Nuclear Dynamics and Its Timing Regulation Revealed by Live-Cell Imaging.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  14. How Early-Life Programming During Embryogenesis Imprints Cellular Memory.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

2 authors.

Adam BurtonInstitute of Epigenetics and Stem Cells (IES), Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Germany.
Maria-Elena Torres-PadillaInstitute of Epigenetics and Stem Cells (IES), Helmholtz Zentrum München, München, Germany. torres-padilla@helmholtz-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1020-2074

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During early embryonic development in mammals, the totipotency of the zygote - which is reprogrammed from the differentiated gametes - transitions to pluripotency by the blastocyst stage, coincident with the first cell fate decision. These changes in cellular potency are accompanied by large-scale alterations in the nucleus, including major transcriptional, epigenetic and architectural remodelling, and the establishment of the DNA replication programme. Advances in low-input genomics and loss-of-function methodologies tailored to the pre-implantation embryo now enable these processes to be studied at an unprecedented level of molecular detail in vivo. Such studies have provided new insights into the genome-wide landscape of epigenetic reprogramming and chromatin dynamics during this fundamental period of pre-implantation development.

Indexed as

Embryonic DevelopmentEpigenesis, GeneticEpigenomeMammalsAnimalsBlastocystChromatinEmbryo, MammalianGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalHumansZygoteChromatin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.