Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15642949›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2005

The pattern of intron loss.

Scott W Roy, Walter Gilbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Spliceosomal intronogenesis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Scott W RoyDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. scottroy@fas.harvard.edu
Walter Gilbert
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We studied intron loss in 684 groups of orthologous genes from seven fully sequenced eukaryotic genomes. We found that introns closer to the 3' ends of genes are preferentially lost, as predicted if introns are lost through gene conversion with a reverse transcriptase product of a spliced mRNA. Adjacent introns tend to be lost in concert, as expected if such events span multiple intron positions. Directly contrary to the expectations of some, introns that do not interrupt codons (phase zero) are more, not less, likely to be lost, an intriguing and previously unappreciated result. Adjacent introns with matching phases are not more likely to be retained, as would be expected if they enjoyed a relative selective advantage. The findings of 3' and phase zero intron loss biases are in direct contradiction to an extremely recent study of fungi intron evolution. All patterns are less pronounced in the lineage leading to Caenorhabditis elegans, suggesting that the process of intron loss may be qualitatively different in nematodes. Our results support a reverse transcriptase-mediated model of intron loss.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularIntronsModels, Genetic3' Flanking RegionAnimalsEukaryotic CellsGene ConversionGenomeHumansRNA-Directed DNA PolymeraseRNA SplicingSequence DeletionRNA-Directed DNA Polymerase

Identifiers

PMID15642949
PMCPMC545554
OpenAlexW2034248053

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.