Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16157668›Full record

ArticleGenetics2006

GC-biased segregation of noncoding polymorphisms in Drosophila.

Nicolas Galtier, Eric Bazin, Nicolas Bierne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Population Genomics on the Fly: Recent Advances in Drosophila.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Should Y stay or should Y go: the evolution of non-recombining sex chromosomes.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2012
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Nicolas GaltierUMR 5171, "Génome, Populations, Interactions, Adaptation," CNRS, Université Montpellier 2, IFREMER, 34095 Montpellier, France. galtier@univ-montp2.fr
Eric Bazin
Nicolas Bierne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of base composition evolution in Drosophila has been achieved mostly through the analysis of coding sequences. Third codon position GC content, however, is influenced by both neutral forces (e.g., mutation bias) and natural selection for codon usage optimization. In this article, large data sets of noncoding DNA sequence polymorphism in D. melanogaster and D. simulans were gathered from public databases to try to disentangle these two factors-noncoding sequences are not affected by selection for codon usage. Allele frequency analyses revealed an asymmetric pattern of AT vs. GC noncoding polymorphisms: AT --> GC mutations are less numerous, and tend to segregate at a higher frequency, than GC --> AT ones, especially at GC-rich loci. This is indicative of nonstationary evolution of base composition and/or of GC-biased allele transmission. Fitting population genetics models to the allele frequency spectra confirmed this result and favored the hypothesis of a biased transmission. These results, together with previous reports, suggest that GC-biased gene conversion has influenced base composition evolution in Drosophila and explain the correlation between intron and exon GC content.

Indexed as

Chromosome SegregationPolymorphism, GeneticSelection, GeneticAnimalsBase PairingChromosome MappingDrosophila melanogasterGC Rich SequenceMutationPhylogenyUntranslated RegionsUntranslated Regions

Identifiers

PMID16157668
PMCPMC1456149

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.