ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2006
Local mutagenic impact of insertions of LTR retrotransposons on the mouse genome.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Solitary LTR loci are the predominant form of LTR retrotransposons in most eukaryotic genomes. They originate from recombination between the two LTRs of an ancestral retrovirus and are therefore incapable of transposition. Despite this inactivity, they appear to have a substantial impact on the host genome. Here we use the murine RMER10 LTR family as an example to describe how such elements can reshape regions of the genome through multiple mutations on an evolutionary time scale. Specifically, we use phylogenetic analysis of multiple copies of RMER10 in rodent species, as well as comparisons of orthologous pairs in mouse and rat, to argue that insertions of members of this family have locally induced the emergence of tandem repeat loci as well as many indels. Analysis of structural aspects of these sequences (secondary structures and transcription factors signals) may explain why RMER10 can become endogenous "mutagenic" factors through induction of replication fork blockages and/or error-prone repair of aberrant DNA structures. This hypothesis is also consistent with features of other interspersed repeated elements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17075698What 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.