ArticleEukaryotic cell2009
Promoter analysis of palindromic transcription units in the ribosomal DNA circle of Entamoeba histolytica.
Article in Eukaryotic cell, 2009. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Episomal and chromosomal DNA replication and recombination inFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Review
- Ribosomal RNA Transcription Machineries in Intestinal Protozoan Parasites: A Bioinformatic Analysis.Acta parasitologica · 2022Article
- Mechanism of gene amplification via yeast autonomously replicating sequences.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2015Article
- Self-circularizing 5'-ETS RNAs accumulate along with unprocessed pre ribosomal RNAs in growth-stressed Entamoeba histolytica.Scientific reports · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
rRNA genes of Entamoeba histolytica are organized as palindromic ribosomal DNA (rDNA) units (I and II) in a 24.5-kb circle. Although the two rDNAs are identical in sequence, their upstream spacers are completely different. Since the intergenic sequences (IGS) of all rDNA copies in other organisms are conserved and contain transcription regulatory sequences, the lack of sequence conservation in the IGS prompted the question of whether both rDNAs are indeed transcriptionally active. We mapped the transcriptional start points (tsp's) and promoters of the two rDNAs. A 51-bp sequence immediately upstream of the tsp's was highly conserved in both units. In addition, both units had an A+T-rich stretch upstream of the 51-bp core. Analysis of reporter gene transcription showed promoter activity to reside in the regions from positions -86 to +123 (rDNA I) and positions -101 to +140 (rDNA II). The promoter-containing fragments from both units could bind and compete with each other for protein(s) from nuclear extracts. Protein binding was especially dependent on the A+T-rich region upstream of the 51-bp core (positions -53 to -68). The requirement of >80 bp downstream of the tsp was striking. Although this sequence was not conserved in the two units, it could potentially fold into very long stem-loops. Both rDNAs transcribed with comparable efficiency, as measured by nuclear runon. Thus, both rDNAs share very similar organization of promoter sequences, and in exponential culture both rDNAs are transcribed. It remains to be seen whether the different IGS affect the regulation of the two units under adverse conditions.
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.