ArticleGenetica2010
Target site selection by the mariner-like element, Mos1.
Article in Genetica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of Transposon Mutagenesis Methods inMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Article
- Repeat elements organise 3D genome structure and mediate transcription in the filamentous fungus Epichloë festucae.PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- Use of mariner transposases for one-step delivery and integration of DNA in prokaryotes and eukaryotes by transfection.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- Biochemical characterization and comparison of two closely related active mariner transposases.Biochemistry · 2014Article
- Target capture during Mos1 transposition.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Article
- Article
- Hsmar1 transposition is sensitive to the topology of the transposon donor and the target.PloS one · 2013Article
- Article
- Nanotechnology approaches for gene transfer.Genetica · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The eukaryotic transposon Mos1 is a class-II transposable element that moves using a "cut-and-paste" mechanism in which the transposase is the only protein factor required. The formation of the excision complex is well documented, but the integration step has so far received less investigation. Like all mariner-like elements, Mos1 was thought to integrate into a TA dinucleotide without displaying any other target selection preferences. We set out to synthesize what is currently known about Mos1 insertion sites, and to define the characteristics of Mos1 insertion sequences in vitro and in vivo. Statistical analysis can be used to identify the TA dinucleotides that are non-randomly targeted for transposon integration. In vitro, no specific feature determining target choice other than the requirement for a TA dinucleotide has been identified. In vivo, data were obtained from two previously reported integration hotspots: the bacterial cat gene and the Caenorhabditis elegans rDNA locus. Analysis of these insertion sites revealed a preference for TA dinucleotides that are included in TATA or TA x TA motifs, or located within AT-rich regions. Analysis of the physical properties of sequences obtained in vitro and in vivo do not help to explain Mos1 integration preferences, suggesting that other characteristics must be involved in Mos1 target choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19629719What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.