Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40404767›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A comparison of genomic methods to assess DNA replication timing.

Emily Wheeler, Leigh Mickelson-Young, Emily E Wear, Mason Burroughs, Hank W Bass, Lorenzo Concia, William F Thompson, Linda Hanley-Bowdoin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. PARTAGE: Parallel analysis of replication timing and gene expression.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Emily WheelerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA. eamarkham7@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5783-6277
Leigh Mickelson-YoungDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2848-4970
Emily E WearDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-6980
Mason BurroughsDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6591-4223
Hank W BassDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32303, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0522-0881
Lorenzo ConciaTexas Advanced Computing Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78758, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7401-7214
William F ThompsonDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5034-8337
Linda Hanley-BowdoinDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7999-8595

Funding

National Science Foundation 2025811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Replication timing (RT), the temporal order in which genomic regions replicate, is considered a functional feature of multiple cellular processes and chromatin organization. Two approaches to measure RT are the Repli-seq and DNA copy number (also called S/G1) methods. We previously adapted Repli-seq using 5-ethynyl-2'- deoxyuridine (EdU) pulse-labeling and bivariate flow sorting, and while the approach offers high resolution and exposes heterogeneity in timing, the S/G1 method is a simpler, faster and less resource-intensive assessment. Here we modified the S/G1 technique by using EdU labeling (EdU-S/G1) to facilitate better separation of replicating from non-replicating nuclei during flow sorting, which enables the collection of a more pure sample of G1-phase nuclei. When comparing the three methods we found that profiles from the S/G1 and EdU-S/G1 methods are highly correlated with each other and with Repli-seq profiles for early replication. We also found that the EdU-S/G1 approach offers a better representation of replication in early and late S phase than the conventional S/G1 method. However, the high reproducibility of RT profiles among all three methods indicates that considerations of cost and sample availability can drive the decision of which method to choose.

Indexed as

DNA ReplicationDNA Replication TimingGenomicsCell NucleusDeoxyuridineG1 PhaseHumansS Phase5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridineDeoxyuridine

Identifiers

PMID40404767
PMCPMC12098861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.