Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19502380›Full record

ArticleGenome research2009

Ride the wavelet: A multiscale analysis of genomic contexts flanking small insertions and deletions.

Erika M Kvikstad, Francesca Chiaromonte, Kateryna D Makova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Precise estimates of mutation rate and spectrum in yeast.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Slow DNA loss in the gigantic genomes of salamanders.Genome biology and evolution · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Genome analyses substantiate male mutation bias in many species.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2011
    Review
  18. Review
  19. A time-invariant principle of genome evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2010
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Erika M KvikstadCenter for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.
Francesca Chiaromonte
Kateryna D Makova

Funding

Male Mutation Bias and Paternal Age Effect in MammalsR01GM072264 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI MAKOVA, KATERYNA · 2004 to 2010
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM072264NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM072264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have revealed that insertions and deletions (indels) are more different in their formation than previously assumed. What remains enigmatic is how the local DNA sequence context contributes to these differences. To investigate the relative impact of various molecular mechanisms to indel formation, we analyzed sequence contexts of indels in the non protein- or RNA-coding, nonrepetitive (NCNR) portion of the human genome. We considered small (<or=30-bp) indels occurring in the human lineage since its divergence from chimpanzee and used wavelet techniques to study, simultaneously for multiple scales, the spatial patterns of short sequence motifs associated with indel mutagenesis. In particular, we focused on motifs associated with DNA polymerase activity, topoisomerase cleavage, double-strand breaks (DSBs), and their repair. We came to the following conclusions. First, many motifs are characterized by unique enrichment profiles in the vicinity of indels vs. indel-free portions of the genome, verifying the importance of sequence context in indel mutagenesis. Second, only limited similarity in motif frequency profiles is evident flanking insertions vs. deletions, confirming differences in their mutagenesis. Third, substantial similarity in frequency profiles exists between pairs of individual motifs flanking insertions (and separately deletions), suggesting "cooperation" among motifs, and thus molecular mechanisms, during indel formation. Fourth, the wavelet analyses demonstrate that all these patterns are highly dependent on scale (the size of an interval considered). Finally, our results depict a model of indel mutagenesis comprising both replication and recombination (via repair of paused replication forks and site-specific recombination).

Indexed as

Genome, HumanGene DeletionHumansINDEL MutationMutagenesis, InsertionalRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic Acid

Identifiers

PMID19502380
PMCPMC2704434

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.