Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19409480›Full record

ArticleGenomics2009

Contrast features of CpG islands in the promoter and other regions in the dog genome.

Leng Han, Zhongming Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Epigenetic alterations in canine mammary cancer.Genetics and molecular biology · 2022
    Article
  7. Long-read assembly of a Great Dane genome highlights the contribution of GC-rich sequence and mobile elements to canine genomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Genomic landscape of CpG rich elements in human.BMC evolutionary biology · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors.

Leng HanDepartment of Psychiatry and Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23298-0126, USA.
Zhongming Zhao

Funding

Generation of Ethanol Response Gene Resource by Large-Scale Data IntegrationR21AA017437 · NIAAA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI ZHAO, ZHONGMING · 2008 to 2009
$398k
Investigating CpG islands in mammalian genomesR03LM009598 · NLM · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI ZHAO, ZHONGMING · 2008 to 2010
$191k
NIAAA NIH HHS R21 AA017437NLM NIH HHS LM009598NLM NIH HHS R03 LM009598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent release of the domestic dog genome provides us with an ideal opportunity to investigate dog-specific genomic features. In this study, we performed a systematic analysis of CpG islands (CGIs), which are often considered gene markers, in the dog genome. Relative to the human and mouse genomes, the dog genome has a remarkably large number of CGIs and high CGI density, which is contributed by its noncoding sequences. Surprisingly, the dog genome has fewer CGIs associated with the promoter regions of genes than the human or the mouse. Further examination of functional features of dog-human-mouse homologous genes suggests that the dog might have undergone a faster erosion rate of promoter-associated CGIs than the human or mouse. Some genetic or genomic factors such as local recombination rate and karyotype may be related to the unique dog CGI features.

Indexed as

CpG IslandsGenomePromoter Regions, GeneticAnimalsCarrier ProteinsDogsGenetic MarkersHumansMiceCarrier ProteinsGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID19409480
PMCPMC2729786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.