MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DNA methylation, environmental exposures and early embryo development

2019· article· en· W2968198740 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélanie Breton‐Larrivée, Elizabeth Elder, Serge McGraw

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Reproduction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsEpigenomeReprogrammingDNA methylationEpigeneticsBiologyEmbryoOffspringCell biologyEmbryogenesisMethylationGeneticsPregnancyDNAGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first crucial step in the developmental program occurs during pre-implantation, the time after the oocyte has been fertilized and before the embryo implants in the uterus. This period represents a vulnerable window as the epigenome undergoes dynamic changes in DNA methylation profiles. Alterations in the early embryonic reprogramming wave can impair DNA methylation patterns and induce permanent changes to the developmental program, leading to the onset of adverse health outcomes in offspring. Although there is an increasing body of evidence indicating that harmful exposures during pre-implantation embryo development can trigger lasting epigenetic alterations in offspring, the mechanisms are still not fully understood. Since physiological or pathological changes in DNA methylation can occur as a response to environmental cues, proper environmental milieu plays a critical role in the success of embryonic development. In this review, we depict the mechanisms behind the embryonic epigenetic reprogramming of DNA methylation and highlight how maternal environmental stressors (e.g., alcohol, heat stress, nutrient availability) during pre-implantation and assisted reproductive technology procedures affect development and DNA methylation marks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ReproductionSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207