Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19622155›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2009

Polymorphic segmental duplication in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.

Ismael A Vergara, Allan K Mah, Jim C Huang, Maja Tarailo-Graovac, Robert C Johnsen, David L Baillie, Nansheng Chen

Abstract 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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A gap-free, telomere-to-telomere genome assembly for thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. CGC1, a new reference genome forGenome research · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recompleting theGenome research · 2019
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Ismael A VergaraDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. iav@sfu.ca
Allan K Mah
Jim C Huang
Maja Tarailo-Graovac
Robert C Johnsen
David L Baillie
Nansheng Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe nematode Caenorhabditis elegans was the first multicellular organism to have its genome fully sequenced. Over the last 10 years since the original publication in 1998, the C. elegans genome has been scrutinized and the last gaps were filled in November 2002, which present a unique opportunity for examining genome-wide segmental duplications.

resultsHere, we performed analysis of the C. elegans genome in search for segmental duplications using a new tool -- OrthoCluster -- we have recently developed. We detected 3,484 duplicated segments -- duplicons -- ranging in size from 234 bp to 108 Kb. The largest pair of duplicons, 108 kb in length located on the left arm of Chromosome V, was further characterized. They are nearly identical at the DNA level (99.7% identity) and each duplicon contains 26 putative protein coding genes. Genotyping of 76 wild-type strains obtained from different labs in the C. elegans community revealed that not all strains contain this duplication. In fact, only 29 strains carry this large segmental duplication, suggesting a very recent duplication event in the C. elegans genome.

conclusionThis report represents the first demonstration that the C. elegans laboratory wild-type N2 strains has acquired large-scale differences.

Indexed as

Genes, DuplicatePolymorphism, GeneticAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsGenome, HelminthCaenorhabditis elegans Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19622155
PMCPMC2728738

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.