Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21282651›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2011

Draft genome of the red harvester ant Pogonomyrmex barbatus.

Chris R Smith, Christopher D Smith, Hugh M Robertson, Martin Helmkampf, Aleksey Zimin, Mark Yandell, Carson Holt, Hao Hu, Ehab Abouheif, Richard Benton and 35 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 128 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing papers in PubMed
21.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

128 citing papers in PubMed, 260 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Microbial Odorant Detection Guides Drosophila Parasitoids Seeking Hosts in Fermenting Fruits.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Genome-Wide Analysis of the Odorant Receptor Gene Family inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

45 authors at 19 institutions in 5 countries.

Chris R SmithDepartment of Biology, Earlham College, Richmond, IN 47374, USA.
Christopher D Smith
Hugh M Robertson
Martin Helmkampf
Aleksey Zimin
Mark Yandell
Carson Holt
Hao Hu
Ehab Abouheif
Richard Benton
Elizabeth Cash
Vincent Croset
Cameron R Currie
Eran Elhaik
Christine G Elsik
Marie-Julie Favé
Vilaiwan Fernandes
Joshua D Gibson
Dan Graur
Wulfila Gronenberg
Kirk J Grubbs
Darren E Hagen
Ana Sofia Ibarraran Viniegra
Brian R Johnson
Reed M Johnson
Abderrahman Khila
Jay W Kim
Kaitlyn A Mathis
Monica C Munoz-Torres
Marguerite C Murphy
Julie A Mustard
Rin Nakamura
Oliver Niehuis
Surabhi Nigam
Rick P Overson
Jennifer E Placek
Rajendhran Rajakumar
Justin T Reese
Garret Suen
Shu Tao
Candice W Torres
Neil D Tsutsui
Lumi Viljakainen
Florian Wolschin
Jürgen Gadau
Arizona State University · USMcGill University · CAGeorgetown University · USSan Francisco State University · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of Utah · USEarlham College · USGreat Lakes Bioenergy Research Center · USUniversity of Lausanne · CHCornell University · USJohns Hopkins University · USNorwegian University of Life Sciences · NOUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Houston · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · USUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USZoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig · DE

Funding

Software for the creation and quality control of genome annotationsR01HG004694 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI YANDELL, MARK DOUGLAS · 2008 to 2011
$2.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS 5R01HG004694NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG004694
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report the draft genome sequence of the red harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus. The genome was sequenced using 454 pyrosequencing, and the current assembly and annotation were completed in less than 1 y. Analyses of conserved gene groups (more than 1,200 manually annotated genes to date) suggest a high-quality assembly and annotation comparable to recently sequenced insect genomes using Sanger sequencing. The red harvester ant is a model for studying reproductive division of labor, phenotypic plasticity, and sociogenomics. Although the genome of P. barbatus is similar to other sequenced hymenopterans (Apis mellifera and Nasonia vitripennis) in GC content and compositional organization, and possesses a complete CpG methylation toolkit, its predicted genomic CpG content differs markedly from the other hymenopterans. Gene networks involved in generating key differences between the queen and worker castes (e.g., wings and ovaries) show signatures of increased methylation and suggest that ants and bees may have independently co-opted the same gene regulatory mechanisms for reproductive division of labor. Gene family expansions (e.g., 344 functional odorant receptors) and pseudogene accumulation in chemoreception and P450 genes compared with A. mellifera and N. vitripennis are consistent with major life-history changes during the adaptive radiation of Pogonomyrmex spp., perhaps in parallel with the development of the North American deserts.

Indexed as

PhylogenyAnimalsAntsBase SequenceDesert ClimateGene Regulatory NetworksGenome, InsectGenomicsHierarchy, SocialMolecular Sequence DataNorth AmericaPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideReceptors, OdorantSequence Analysis, DNAReceptors, Odorant

Identifiers

PMID21282651
PMCPMC3078412
OpenAlexW1969491977

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.