Cited by 17Genetic Syndromes and ImprintingAnimal Behavior and ReproductionGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Mammalian viviparity: a complex niche in the evolution of genomic imprinting

Open access
Keverne, E B·2014·Heredity

Abstract

Evolution of mammalian reproductive success has witnessed a strong dependence on maternal resources through placental in utero development. Genomic imprinting, which has an active role in mammalian viviparity, also reveals a biased role for matrilineal DNA in its regulation. The co-existence of three matrilineal generations as one (mother, foetus and post-meiotic oocytes) has provided a maternal niche for transgenerational co-adaptive selection pressures to operate. In utero foetal growth has required increased maternal feeding in advance of foetal energetic demands; the mammary glands are primed for milk production in advance of birth, while the maternal hypothalamus is hormonally primed by the foetal placenta for nest building and post-natal care. Such biological forward planning resulted from maternal-foetal co-adaptation facilitated by co-expression of the same imprinted allele in the developing hypothalamus and placenta. This co-expression is concurrent with the placenta interacting with the adult maternal hypothalamus thereby providing a transgenerational template on which selection pressures may operate ensuring optimal maternalism in this and the next generation. Invasive placentation has further required the maternal immune system to adapt and positively respond to the foetal allotype. Pivotal to these mammalian evolutionary developments, genomic imprinting emerged as a monoallelic gene dosage regulatory mechanism of tightly interconnected gene networks providing developmental genetic stability for in utero development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/hdy.2014.8

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This leads to differential selection pressures on maternally and paternally inherited alleles in the conceptus with respect to resource allocation and is manifested as genomic imprinting, a mechanism for monoallelically regulating gene dosage in a parent-of-origin fashion.

    “This leads to differential selection pressures on maternally and paternally inherited alleles in the conceptus with respect to resource allocation and is manifested as genomic imprinting, a mechanism for monoallelically regulating gene dosage in a parent-of-origin fashion (305, 391).”

    From Placental Origins of Chronic Disease (2016) · cites this paper as [305]

  • Changes in placental phenotype in response to environmental cues can be seen as a co-adaptive response mutually beneficial to the mother and fetus in the successful outcome of pregnancy.

    “Changes in placental phenotype in response to environmental cues can, therefore, be seen as a co-adaptive response mutually beneficial to the mother and fetus in the successful outcome of pregnancy (305).”

    From Placental Origins of Chronic Disease (2016) · cites this paper as [305]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keverne, E. B.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Keverne, E B
Venue
Heredity
Published
2014-02-26
Volume
113
Issue
2
Pages
138-144
ISSN
  • 0018-067X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2540
OpenAlex
W1968011921
Cited by
17
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Syndromes and Imprinting
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
genomic imprinting, placenta, fetal growth, mammary gland development, placental hormones, maternal-fetal immune tolerance, monoallelic expression, in utero development
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Biological, Alleles, Animals, Biological Evolution, Female, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Male, Mammals, Reproduction, Genomic Imprinting, Gene Regulatory Networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review