Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19656363›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2009

Comparative genomics in chicken and Pekin duck using FISH mapping and microarray analysis.

Benjamin M Skinner, Lindsay B W Robertson, Helen G Tempest, Elizabeth J Langley, Dimitris Ioannou, Katie E Fowler, Richard P M A Crooijmans, Anthony D Hall, Darren K Griffin, Martin Völker

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 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. GoatAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Do sex chromosomes of snakes, monitor lizards, and iguanian lizards result from multiple fission of an "ancestral amniote super-sex chromosome"?Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Benjamin M SkinnerDepartment of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NJ, UK.
Lindsay B W Robertson
Helen G Tempest
Elizabeth J Langley
Dimitris Ioannou
Katie E Fowler
Richard P M A Crooijmans
Anthony D Hall
Darren K Griffin
Martin Völker
University of Kent · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GBWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E010652/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council G19438/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe availability of the complete chicken (Gallus gallus) genome sequence as well as a large number of chicken probes for fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) and microarray resources facilitate comparative genomic studies between chicken and other bird species. In a previous study, we provided a comprehensive cytogenetic map for the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and the first analysis of copy number variants (CNVs) in birds. Here, we extend this approach to the Pekin duck (Anas platyrhynchos), an obvious target for comparative genomic studies due to its agricultural importance and resistance to avian flu.

resultsWe provide a detailed molecular cytogenetic map of the duck genome through FISH assignment of 155 chicken clones. We identified one inter- and six intrachromosomal rearrangements between chicken and duck macrochromosomes and demonstrated conserved synteny among all microchromosomes analysed. Array comparative genomic hybridisation revealed 32 CNVs, of which 5 overlap previously designated "hotspot" regions between chicken and turkey.

conclusionOur results suggest extensive conservation of avian genomes across 90 million years of evolution in both macro- and microchromosomes. The data on CNVs between chicken and duck extends previous analyses in chicken and turkey and supports the hypotheses that avian genomes contain fewer CNVs than mammalian genomes and that genomes of evolutionarily distant species share regions of copy number variation ("CNV hotspots"). Our results will expedite duck genomics, assist marker development and highlight areas of interest for future evolutionary and functional studies.

Indexed as

Comparative Genomic HybridizationAnimalsChickensChromosome MappingChromosomes, Artificial, BacterialDucksEvolution, MolecularGene DosageGenomicsIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSequence Analysis, DNASynteny

Identifiers

PMID19656363
PMCPMC2907691
OpenAlexW2115209309

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.