Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19468303›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2009

Lineage-specific biology revealed by a finished genome assembly of the mouse.

Deanna M Church, Leo Goodstadt, Ladeana W Hillier, Michael C Zody, Steve Goldstein, Xinwe She, Carol J Bult, Richa Agarwala, Joshua L Cherry, Michael DiCuccio and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 290 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
290citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

290 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. RNA-seq analysis reveals transcriptome changes in livers fromBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025
    Article
  17. The state of the human coding gene catalogues.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Cysteine Peptidases ofCurrent protein & peptide science · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

230 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

32 authors.

Deanna M ChurchNational Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America. church@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Leo Goodstadt
Ladeana W Hillier
Michael C Zody
Steve Goldstein
Xinwe She
Carol J Bult
Richa Agarwala
Joshua L Cherry
Michael DiCuccio
Wratko Hlavina
Yuri Kapustin
Peter Meric
Donna Maglott
Zoë Birtle
Ana C Marques
Tina Graves
Shiguo Zhou
Brian Teague
Konstantinos Potamousis
Christopher Churas
Michael Place
Jill Herschleb
Ron Runnheim
Daniel Forrest
James Amos-Landgraf
David C Schwartz
Ze Cheng
Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
Evan E Eichler
Chris P Ponting
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium

Funding

National Biomedical Information ServicesZIHLM200888 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI PALTOO, DINA · 2009 to 2025
$5200.7M
Sequence and Assembly of Segmental DuplicationsR01HG002385 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Evan Eichler · 2001 to 2026
$13.3M
Medical Research Council MC_U127561112Medical Research Council MC_U137761446Medical Research Council MC_U142684174NHGRI NIH HHS HG002385NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002385Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mouse (Mus musculus) is the premier animal model for understanding human disease and development. Here we show that a comprehensive understanding of mouse biology is only possible with the availability of a finished, high-quality genome assembly. The finished clone-based assembly of the mouse strain C57BL/6J reported here has over 175,000 fewer gaps and over 139 Mb more of novel sequence, compared with the earlier MGSCv3 draft genome assembly. In a comprehensive analysis of this revised genome sequence, we are now able to define 20,210 protein-coding genes, over a thousand more than predicted in the human genome (19,042 genes). In addition, we identified 439 long, non-protein-coding RNAs with evidence for transcribed orthologs in human. We analyzed the complex and repetitive landscape of 267 Mb of sequence that was missing or misassembled in the previously published assembly, and we provide insights into the reasons for its resistance to sequencing and assembly by whole-genome shotgun approaches. Duplicated regions within newly assembled sequence tend to be of more recent ancestry than duplicates in the published draft, correcting our initial understanding of recent evolution on the mouse lineage. These duplicates appear to be largely composed of sequence regions containing transposable elements and duplicated protein-coding genes; of these, some may be fixed in the mouse population, but at least 40% of segmentally duplicated sequences are copy number variable even among laboratory mouse strains. Mouse lineage-specific regions contain 3,767 genes drawn mainly from rapidly-changing gene families associated with reproductive functions. The finished mouse genome assembly, therefore, greatly improves our understanding of rodent-specific biology and allows the delineation of ancestral biological functions that are shared with human from derived functions that are not.

Indexed as

AnimalsComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticGene DuplicationGenomeHumansMice

Identifiers

PMID19468303
PMCPMC2680341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.