ArticlePloS one2008
Computational analysis of constraints on noncoding regions, coding regions and gene expression in relation to Plasmodium phenotypic diversity.
Article in PloS one, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome-wide survey of natural selection on functional, structural, and network properties of polymorphic sites in Saccharomyces paradoxus.Molecular biology and evolution · 2011Article
- Modes of gene duplication contribute differently to genetic novelty and redundancy, but show parallels across divergent angiosperms.PloS one · 2011Article
- Comparison of computational models for assessing conservation of gene expression across species.PloS one · 2010Article
- Conservation and divergence of known apicomplexan transcriptional regulons.BMC genomics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMalaria-causing Plasmodium species exhibit marked differences including host choice and preference for invading particular cell types. The genetic bases of phenotypic differences between parasites can be understood, in part, by investigating constraints on gene expression and genic sequences, both coding and regulatory. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe investigated the evolutionary constraints on sequence and expression of parasitic genes by applying comparative genomics approaches to 6 Plasmodium genomes and 2 genome-wide expression studies. We found that the coding regions of Plasmodium transcription factor and sexual development genes are relatively less constrained, as are those of genes encoding CCCH zinc fingers and invasion proteins, which all play important roles in these parasites. Transcription factors and genes with stage-restricted expression have conserved upstream regions and so do several gene classes critical to the parasite's lifestyle, namely, ion transport, invasion, chromatin assembly and CCCH zinc fingers. Additionally, a cross-species comparison of expression patterns revealed that Plasmodium-specific genes exhibit significant expression divergence. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Overall, constraints on Plasmodium's protein coding regions confirm observations from other eukaryotes in that transcription factors are under relatively lower constraint. Proteins relevant to the parasite's unique lifestyle also have lower constraint on their coding regions. Greater conservation between Plasmodium species in terms of promoter motifs suggests tight regulatory control of lifestyle genes. However, an interspecies divergence in expression patterns of these genes suggests that either expression is controlled via genomic or epigenomic features not encoded in the proximal promoter sequence, or alternatively, the combinatorial interactions between motifs confer species-specific expression patterns.
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.