ArticlePlant direct2026
CUT&Tag for High-Resolution Epigenomic Profiling From a Low Amount of
Article in Plant direct, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- FLC genes control flowering time to varying degrees in a Brassica napus spring cultivar.Plant molecular biology · 2026Article
- The Role of Histone Modifications in Plant Priming and Their Analysis by Chromatin Immunoprecipitation.Physiologia plantarumReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The genome-wide profiling of chromatin states that are defined by different histone posttranslational modifications, known as epigenomic profiling, is crucial for understanding the epigenetic regulations of gene expression, both in animal and plant systems. CUT&Tag (Cleavage Under Targets and Tagmentation) is a novel enzyme-tethering method for epigenomic profiling, initially developed for mammalian cells. CUT&Tag has several advantages compared to the most commonly used epigenomic profiling methods such as chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq). CUT&Tag allows epigenenomic profiling from a much smaller amount of starting material compared to ChIP-seq. Moreover, CUT&Tag relies on in situ DNA cleavage mediated by a transposase tethered to antibodies, while ChIP-seq typically involves nearly random DNA fragmentation. This fundamental difference raises the important question of whether CUT&Tag provides distinct advantages in terms of resolution and the precision of epigenomic profiles compared to ChIP-seq. Results: We profiled the genome-wide distribution of three histone modifications, H3K27me3, H3K4me3, and H3K27Ac, from a few seedlings of Conclusion: CUT&Tag is a valid, easy-to-perform, cost-effective, and reliable approach for efficient epigenomic profiling in
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.