ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparison of genomic methods to assess DNA replication timing.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding DNA metabolism and its clinical relevance through the lens of high-throughput sequencing assays.Medical review (2021) · 2026Review
- REPLAY: A reproducible and user-friendly application for DNA replication timing analysis from Repli-seq data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Parallel analysis of replication timing, gene expression, and copy number with PARTAGE.Genome research · 2026Article
- Replication timing uncovers a two-compartment nuclear architecture of interphase euchromatin.The Plant cell · 2026Article
- PARTAGE: Parallel analysis of replication timing and gene expression.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.