ReviewJournal of biosciences2005
Stochasticity or the fatal 'imperfection' of cloning.
Review in Journal of biosciences, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isolating and quantifying the role of developmental noise in generating phenotypic variation.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Stochastic developmental variation, an epigenetic source of phenotypic diversity with far-reaching biological consequences.Journal of biosciences · 2015Review
- 'Particle genetics': treating every cell as unique.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2014Review
- Factors other than genotype account largely for the phenotypic variation of the pulmonary valve in Syrian hamsters.Journal of anatomy · 2012Article
- Genetically alike Syrian hamsters display both bifoliate and trifoliate aortic valves.Journal of anatomy · 2012Article
- pTcINDEX: a stable tetracycline-regulated expression vector for Trypanosoma cruzi.BMC biotechnology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of clone is analysed with the aim of exploring the limits to which a phenotype can be said to be determined geneticaly. First of all, mutations that result from the replication, topological manipulation or lesion of DNA introduce a source of heritable variation in an otherwise identical genetic background. But more important, stochastic effects in many biological processes may superimpose a phenotypic variation which is not encoded in the genome. The source of stochasticity ranges from the random selection of alleles or whole chromosomes to be expressed in small cell populations, to fluctuations in processes such as gene expression, due to limiting amounts of the players involved. The picture emerging is that the term clone is a statistical over-simplification representing a series of individuals having essentially the same genome but capable of exhibiting wide phenotypic variation. Finally, to what extent fluctuations in biological processes, usually thought of as noise, are in fact signal is also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15824438What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.