Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41840059›Full record

ReviewThe EMBO journal2026

Graded versus ON/OFF control in quantitative gene expression and epigenetic memory.

Caroline Dean, Martin Howard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The EMBO journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Caroline DeanDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK. caroline.dean@jic.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6555-3525
Martin HowardDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK. martin.howard@jic.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7670-0781

Funding

EC | European Research Council (ERC) EPISWITCH 833254Royal Society (The Royal Society) RP\R1\180002UKRI | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (AFRC) BB/P013511/1Wellcome 210654/Z/18/ZWellcome 302160/Z/23/ZWellcome Human Developmental Biology Initiative
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How can expression of a specific gene be quantitatively regulated? In this review, we discuss two possible modalities. In one, the level of mRNA generated from each gene copy can be smoothly varied giving graded analogue control. In a second, some gene copies generate high mRNA levels whilst others generate very low levels, giving ON/OFF digital control, with the fraction of copies with high or low expression being regulated. We focus on why in different contexts one modality would be preferred over the other, how these two modalities can be generated through transcriptional regulation, and discuss whether ON/OFF control is particularly linked to epigenetic memory. We argue that digital control arises for memory mediated by trans-factor feedback loops and histone modifications, but not necessarily for DNA methylation. We also examine how these expression modes can be established at one specific target, Arabidopsis FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC). Graded expression and switching to ON/OFF control occur during early development and during long-term cold exposure and both are key to FLC regulation.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisArabidopsis ProteinsEpigenesis, GeneticGene Expression Regulation, PlantMADS Domain ProteinsDNA MethylationEpigenetic MemoryArabidopsis ProteinsAt5g10140 protein, ArabidopsisMADS Domain ProteinsEpigenetic MemoryMathematical ModellingON/OFF Versus Graded ControlPolycomb SystemQuantitative Gene Expression

Identifiers

PMID41840059
PMCPMC13144320

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.