Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21081967›Full record

ArticleHeredity2011

DNA polymorphism in recombining and non-recombining mating-type-specific loci of the smut fungus Microbotryum.

A A Votintseva, D A Filatov

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genetic Diversity on the Sex Chromosomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2018
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A A VotintsevaDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
D A Filatov
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The population-genetic processes leading to the genetic degeneration of non-recombining regions have mainly been studied in animal and plant sex chromosomes. Here, we report population genetic analysis of the processes in the non-recombining mating-type-specific regions of the smut fungus Microbotryum violaceum. M. violaceum has A1 and A2 mating types, determined by mating-type-specific 'sex chromosomes' that contain 1-2 Mb long non-recombining regions. If genetic degeneration were occurring, then one would expect reduced DNA polymorphism in the non-recombining regions of this fungus. The analysis of DNA diversity among 19 M. violaceum strains, collected across Europe from Silene latifolia flowers, revealed that (i) DNA polymorphism is relatively low in all 20 studied loci (π∼0.15%), (ii) it is not significantly different between the two mating-type-specific chromosomes nor between the non-recombining and recombining regions, (iii) there is substantial population structure in M. violaceum populations, which resembles that of its host species, S. latifolia, and (iv) there is significant linkage disequilibrium, suggesting that widespread selfing in this species results in a reduction of the effective recombination rate across the genome. We hypothesise that selfing-related reduction of recombination across the M. violaceum genome negates the difference in the level of DNA polymorphism between the recombining and non-recombining regions, and may possibly lead to similar levels of genetic degeneration in the mating-type-specific regions of the non-recombining 'sex chromosomes' and elsewhere in the genome.

Indexed as

BasidiomycotaCluster AnalysisGenetic LociGenetics, PopulationLinkage DisequilibriumPhylogenyPolymorphism, GeneticRecombination, GeneticReproductionSex Chromosomes

Identifiers

PMID21081967
PMCPMC3186254
OpenAlexW2026477036

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.