Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15647899›Full record

ArticleChromosoma2005

Genome size and chromatin condensation in vertebrates.

Alexander E Vinogradov

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chromosoma, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A guided tour of large genome size in animals: what we know and where we are heading.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2011
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

1 author.

Alexander E VinogradovInstitute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tikhoretsky Ave. 4, St. Petersburg, 194064, Russia. aevin@mail.cytspb.rssi.ru

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell membrane-dependent chromatin condensation was studied by flow cytometry in erythrocytes of 36 species from six classes of vertebrates. A positive relationship was found between the degree of condensation and genome size. The distribution of variances among taxonomic levels is similar for both parameters. However, chromatin condensation varied relatively more at the lower taxonomic levels, which suggests that the degree of DNA packaging might serve for fine-tuning the 'skeletal' and/or 'buffering' function of noncoding DNA (although the range of this fine-tuning is smaller than the range of genome size changes). For two closely related amphibian species differing in genome size, change in chromatin condensation under the action of elevated extracellular salinity was investigated. Condensation was steadier and its reaction to changes in solvent composition was more inertial in the species with a larger genome, which is in agreement with the buffering function postulated for redundant DNA. The uppermost genome size in vertebrates (and in living beings in general) was updated using flow cytometry and was found to be about 80 pg (78,400 Mb). The widespread opinion that the largest genome occurs in unicellular organisms is rejected as being based on artifacts.

Indexed as

GenomeAnimalsBase CompositionCell MembraneChromatinDNAErythrocytesFlow CytometryHumansSolventsSpecies SpecificityVertebratesChromatinDNASolvents

Identifiers

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.