Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20668018›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2010

What is a microsatellite: a computational and experimental definition based upon repeat mutational behavior at A/T and GT/AC repeats.

Yogeshwar D Kelkar, Noelle Strubczewski, Suzanne E Hile, Francesca Chiaromonte, Kristin A Eckert, Kateryna D Makova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Therapeutic targeting of mismatch repair-deficient cancers.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Molecular analysis of cryptosporidiosis on cattle farms in Gran Canaria, Canary Islands (Spain).International journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Solution Structure of Poly(UG) RNA.Journal of molecular biology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yogeshwar D KelkarDepartment of Biology, Penn State University, Pennsylvania, USA.
Noelle Strubczewski
Suzanne E Hile
Francesca Chiaromonte
Kristin A Eckert
Kateryna D Makova
Pennsylvania State University · USCancer Research Foundation · US

Funding

Computational and Biochemical Analysis of Microsatellite Life CycleR01GM087472 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI ECKERT, KRISTIN A, MAKOVA, KATERYNA · 2009 to 2012
$1.4M
DNA replication, DNA repair and microsatellite stabilityR01CA100060 · NCI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI ECKERT, KRISTIN A · 2005 to 2009
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100060NCI NIH HHS R01CA100060NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM087472NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM087472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microsatellites are abundant in eukaryotic genomes and have high rates of strand slippage-induced repeat number alterations. They are popular genetic markers, and their mutations are associated with numerous neurological diseases. However, the minimal number of repeats required to constitute a microsatellite has been debated, and a definition of a microsatellite that considers its mutational behavior has been lacking. To define a microsatellite, we investigated slippage dynamics for a range of repeat sizes, utilizing two approaches. Computationally, we assessed length polymorphism at repeat loci in ten ENCODE regions resequenced in four human populations, assuming that the occurrence of polymorphism reflects strand slippage rates. Experimentally, we determined the in vitro DNA polymerase-mediated strand slippage error rates as a function of repeat number. In both approaches, we compared strand slippage rates at tandem repeats with the background slippage rates. We observed two distinct modes of mutational behavior. At small repeat numbers, slippage rates were low and indistinguishable from background measurements. A marked transition in mutability was observed as the repeat array lengthened, such that slippage rates at large repeat numbers were significantly higher than the background rates. For both mononucleotide and dinucleotide microsatellites studied, the transition length corresponded to a similar number of nucleotides (approximately 10). Thus, microsatellite threshold is determined not by the presence/absence of strand slippage at repeats but by an abrupt alteration in slippage rates relative to background. These findings have implications for understanding microsatellite mutagenesis, standardization of genome-wide microsatellite analyses, and predicting polymorphism levels of individual microsatellite loci.

Indexed as

AT Rich SequenceComputational BiologyDNA-Directed DNA PolymeraseHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsMutationPolymorphism, GeneticDNA-Directed DNA Polymerase

Identifiers

PMID20668018
PMCPMC2940325
OpenAlexW2112421940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.