Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17941704›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2007

A macaque's-eye view of human insertions and deletions: differences in mechanisms.

Erika M Kvikstad, Svitlana Tyekucheva, Francesca Chiaromonte, Kateryna D Makova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Segmenting the human genome based on states of neutral genetic divergence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. "Breaking news" from spermatids.Basic and clinical andrology · 2013
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erika M KvikstadCenter for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Svitlana Tyekucheva
Francesca Chiaromonte
Kateryna D Makova
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

SOFTWARE FOR ANALYZING BIOSEQUENCE DATAR01HG002238 · NHGRI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI MILLER, WEBB COLBY · 2000 to 2010
$7.8M
Male Mutation Bias and Paternal Age Effect in MammalsR01GM072264 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI MAKOVA, KATERYNA · 2004 to 2010
$1.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002238NHGRI NIH HHS R01-HG02238NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM072264NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM072264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insertions and deletions (indels) cause numerous genetic diseases and lead to pronounced evolutionary differences among genomes. The macaque sequences provide an opportunity to gain insights into the mechanisms generating these mutations on a genome-wide scale by establishing the polarity of indels occurring in the human lineage since its divergence from the chimpanzee. Here we apply novel regression techniques and multiscale analyses to demonstrate an extensive regional indel rate variation stemming from local fluctuations in divergence, GC content, male and female recombination rates, proximity to telomeres, and other genomic factors. We find that both replication and, surprisingly, recombination are significantly associated with the occurrence of small indels. Intriguingly, the relative inputs of replication versus recombination differ between insertions and deletions, thus the two types of mutations are likely guided in part by distinct mechanisms. Namely, insertions are more strongly associated with factors linked to recombination, while deletions are mostly associated with replication-related features. Indel as a term misleadingly groups the two types of mutations together by their effect on a sequence alignment. However, here we establish that the correct identification of a small gap as an insertion or a deletion (by use of an outgroup) is crucial to determining its mechanism of origin. In addition to providing novel insights into insertion and deletion mutagenesis, these results will assist in gap penalty modeling and eventually lead to more reliable genomic alignments.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGene DeletionAnimalsChromosome MappingComputer SimulationDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA Transposable ElementsEvolution, MolecularGenome, HumanHumansMacacaModels, GeneticDNA Transposable Elements

Identifiers

PMID17941704
PMCPMC1976337
OpenAlexW2054520275

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.