Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11973316›Full record

ArticleGenetics2002

Crossover interference in Arabidopsis.

G P Copenhaver, E A Housworth, F W Stahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing 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

97 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The histone variant H2A.W restricts heterochromatic crossovers inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Creating novel ornamentalsFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Enhancing backcross programs through increased recombination.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    Article
  17. Meiotic Crossover Patterning.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

G P CopenhaverDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
E A Housworth
F W Stahl

Funding

GENETIC RECOMBINATION IN PHAGE AND FUNGIR37GM033677 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI STAHL, FRANKLIN W · 1992 to 2001
$523k
GENETIC RECOMBINATION IN PHAGE &FUNGIR01GM033677 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI STAHL, FRANKLIN W · 1985 to 1991
–
NIGMS NIH HHS GM-33677
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The crossover distribution in meiotic tetrads of Arabidopsis thaliana differs from those previously described for Drosophila and Neurospora. Whereas a chi-square distribution with an even number of degrees of freedom provides a good fit for the latter organisms, the fit for Arabidopsis was substantially improved by assuming an additional set of crossovers sprinkled, at random, among those distributed as per chi square. This result is compatible with the view that Arabidopsis has two pathways for meiotic crossing over, only one of which is subject to interference. The results further suggest that Arabidopsis meiosis has >10 times as many double-strand breaks as crossovers.

Indexed as

Cell Cycle ProteinsCrossing Over, GeneticArabidopsisArabidopsis ProteinsDNA-Binding ProteinsGenetic MarkersLikelihood FunctionsRec A RecombinasesArabidopsis ProteinsATDMC1 protein, ArabidopsisCell Cycle ProteinsDNA-Binding ProteinsGenetic MarkersRec A Recombinases

Identifiers

PMID11973316
PMCPMC1462055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.