ArticlePloS one2007
Meiotic transmission of Drosophila pseudoobscura chromosomal arrangements.
Article in PloS one, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How chromosomal rearrangements shape adaptation and speciation: Case studies in Drosophila pseudoobscura and its sibling species Drosophila persimilis.Molecular ecology · 2019Article
- Opposite environmental and genetic influences on body size in North American Drosophila pseudoobscura.BMC evolutionary biology · 2015Article
- Temperature can shape a cline in polyandry, but only genetic variation can sustain it over time.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drosophila pseudoobscura harbors a rich gene arrangement polymorphism on the third chromosome generated by a series of overlapping paracentric inversions. The arrangements suppress recombination in heterokaryotypic individuals, which allows for the selective maintenance of coadapted gene complexes. Previous mapping experiments used to determine the degree to which recombination is suppressed in gene arrangement heterozygotes produced non-recombinant progeny in non-Mendelian ratios. The deviations from Mendelian expectations could be the result of viability differences between wild and mutant chromosomes, meiotic drive because of achiasmate pairing of homologues in heterokaryotypic females during meiosis, or a combination of both mechanisms. The possibility that the frequencies of the chromosomal arrangements in natural populations are affected by mechanisms other than adaptive selection led us to consider these hypotheses. We performed reciprocal crosses involving both heterozygous males and females to determine if the frequency of the non-recombinant progeny deviates significantly from Mendelian expectations and if the frequencies deviate between reciprocal crosses. We failed to observe non-Mendelian ratios in multiple crosses, and the frequency of the non-recombinant classes differed in only one of five pairs of reciprocal crosses despite sufficient power to detect these differences in all crosses. Our results indicate that deviations from Mendelian expectations in recombination experiments involving the D. pseudoobscura inversion system are most likely due to fitness differences of gene arrangement karyotypes in different environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.