Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20876995›Full record

ReviewJournal of genetics2010

Fruitless alternative splicing and sex behaviour in insects: an ancient and unforgettable love story?

Marco Salvemini, Catello Polito, Giuseppe Saccone

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The role ofScience advances · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Theme and variation in the evolution of insect sex determination.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2023
    Review
  10. Sex-biased expression is associated with chromatin state inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

3 authors.

Marco SalveminiDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, 80134, Naples, Italy.
Catello Polito
Giuseppe Saccone

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Courtship behaviours are common features of animal species that reproduce sexually. Typically, males are involved in courting females. Insects display an astonishing variety of courtship strategies primarily based on innate stereotyped responses to various external stimuli. In Drosophila melanogaster, male courtship requires proteins encoded by the fruitless (fru) gene that are produced in different sex-specific isoforms via alternative splicing. Drosophila mutant flies with loss-of-function alleles of the fru gene exhibit blocked male courtship behaviour. However, various individual steps in the courtship ritual are disrupted in fly strains carrying different fru alleles. These findings suggest that fru is required for specific steps in courtship. In distantly related insect species, various fru paralogues were isolated, which shows conservation of sex-specific alternative splicing and protein expression in neural tissues and suggests an evolutionary functional conservation of fru in the control of male-specific courtship behaviour. In this review, we report the seminal findings regarding the fru gene, its splicing regulation and evolution in insects.

Indexed as

Sexual Behavior, AnimalAlternative SplicingAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterDrosophila ProteinsFemaleInsect ProteinsMaleNerve Tissue ProteinsTranscription FactorsDrosophila Proteinsfru protein, DrosophilaInsect ProteinsNerve Tissue ProteinsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.