ArticleHuman genetics2005
Evolution versus constitution: differences in chromosomal inversion.
Article in Human genetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fine Breakpoint Mapping by Genome Sequencing Reveals the First Large X Inversion Disrupting theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- One pedigree we all may have come from - did Adam and Eve have the chromosome 2 fusion?Molecular cytogenetics · 2016Article
- Inversion variants in the human genome: role in disease and genome architecture.Genome medicine · 2010Article
- Chromosomal inversions between human and chimpanzee lineages caused by retrotransposons.PloS one · 2008Article
- Ovarian dysfunction and FMR1 alleles in a large Italian family with POF and FRAXA disorders: case report.BMC medical genetics · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the chromosomal breakpoints of evolutionary conserved and constitutional inversions. Multicolor banding and human-specific bacterial artificial chromosomes were applied to map the breakpoints of constitutional pericentric inversions on human chromosomes 2 and 9. For the first time, we present a high-resolution analysis of the breakpoint regions, which are characterized by gene destitution, co-localization with fragile sites, multitude repeats as well as pseudogenes and, remarkably, a large sequence homology to the opposite breakpoint. In contrast, evolutionary inversion breakpoints lack such extensive cross-hybridizing regions and are often associated with fragile sites of the genome and low-copy repeats. These molecular characteristics gave evidence for different types of inversion formation and indicate that evolutionary inversions cannot originate from constitutional inversions like those of chromosomes 2 and 9. Finally, the constitutional inversion breakpoints were investigated on three different great ape species and on four test persons each bearing the same cytogenetically determined inversion on chromosomes 2 and 9, respectively. Our data indicate the existence of different molecular breakpoints for the two variant chromosomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15886998What 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.