Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19607652›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2009

The value of avian genomics to the conservation of wildlife.

Michael N Romanov, Elaina M Tuttle, Marlys L Houck, William S Modi, Leona G Chemnick, Marisa L Korody, Emily M Stremel Mork, Christie A Otten, Tanya Renner, Kenneth C Jones and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Comparative genomics for biodiversity conservation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2015
    Review
  20. Review
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

21 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Michael N RomanovGenetics Division, San Diego Zoo's Institute for Conservation Research, Zoological Society of San Diego, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center for Conservation Research, 15600 San Pasqual Valley Rd., Escondido, CA 92027, USA. MRomanov@chori.org
Elaina M Tuttle
Marlys L Houck
William S Modi
Leona G Chemnick
Marisa L Korody
Emily M Stremel Mork
Christie A Otten
Tanya Renner
Kenneth C Jones
Sugandha Dandekar
Jeanette C Papp
Yang Da
NISC Comparative Sequencing Program
Eric D Green
Vincent Magrini
Matthew T Hickenbotham
Jarret Glasscock
Sean McGrath
Elaine R Mardis
Oliver A Ryder
Washington University in St. Louis · USZoological Society of San Diego · USSan Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research · USIndiana State University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USNational Human Genome Research Institute · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic studies in non-domestic avian models, such as the California condor and white-throated sparrow, can lead to more comprehensive conservation plans and provide clues for understanding mechanisms affecting genetic variation, adaptation and evolution.Developing genomic tools and resources including genomic libraries and a genetic map of the California condor is a prerequisite for identification of candidate loci for a heritable embryonic lethal condition. The white-throated sparrow exhibits a stable genetic polymorphism (i.e. chromosomal rearrangements) associated with variation in morphology, physiology, and behavior (e.g., aggression, social behavior, sexual behavior, parental care).In this paper we outline the utility of these species as well as report on recent advances in the study of their genomes.

resultsGenotyping of the condor resource population at 17 microsatellite loci provided a better assessment of the current population's genetic variation. Specific New World vulture repeats were found in the condor genome. Using condor BAC library and clones, chicken-condor comparative maps were generated. A condor fibroblast cell line transcriptome was characterized using the 454 sequencing technology.Our karyotypic analyses of the sparrow in combination with other studies indicate that the rearrangements in both chromosomes 2m and 3a are complex and likely involve multiple inversions, interchromosomal linkage, and pleiotropy. At least a portion of the rearrangement in chromosome 2m existed in the common ancestor of the four North American species of Zonotrichia, but not in the one South American species, and that the 2m form, originally thought to be the derived condition, might actually be the ancestral one.

conclusionMining and characterization of candidate loci in the California condor using molecular genetic and genomic techniques as well as linkage and comparative genomic mapping will eventually enable the identification of carriers of the chondrodystrophy allele, resulting in improved genetic management of this disease.In the white-throated sparrow, genomic studies, combined with ecological data, will help elucidate the basis of genic selection in a natural population. Morphs of the sparrow provide us with a unique opportunity to study intraspecific genomic differences, which have resulted from two separate yet linked evolutionary trajectories. Such results can transform our understanding of evolutionary and conservation biology.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesGenomicsAnimalsChromosomes, Artificial, BacterialEvolution, MolecularFemaleGene LibraryGenetic LinkageGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationKaryotypingMicrosatellite RepeatsRaptorsSequence Analysis, DNASparrows

Identifiers

PMID19607652
PMCPMC2966331
OpenAlexW2036968756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.