ArticleGenetics and molecular biology2011
Comparative cytogenetic analysis of two grasshopper species of the tribe Abracrini (Ommatolampinae, Acrididae).
Article in Genetics and molecular biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How dynamic could be the 45S rDNA cistron? An intriguing variability in a grasshopper species revealed by integration of chromosomal and genomic data.Chromosoma · 2019Article
- Chromosome mapping inComparative cytogenetics · 2017Article
- Spreading of heterochromatin and karyotype differentiation in two Tropidacris Scudder, 1869 species (Orthoptera, Romaleidae).Comparative cytogenetics · 2015Article
- A comparative study of genome organization and inferences for the systematics of two large bushcricket genera of the tribe Barbitistini (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae: Phaneropterinae).BMC evolutionary biology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The grasshopper species Orthoscapheus rufipes and Eujivarus fusiformis were analyzed using several cytogenetic techniques. The karyotype of O. rufipes, described here for the first time, had a diploid number of 2n = 23, whereas E. fusiformis had a karyotype with 2n = 21. The two species showed the same mechanism of sex determination (XO type) but differed in chromosome morphology. Pericentromeric blocks of constitutive heterochromatin (CH) were detected in the chromosome complement of both species. CMA(3)/DA/DAPI staining revealed CMA(3)-positive blocks in CH regions in four autosomal bivalents of O. rufipes and in two of E. fusiformis. The location of active NORs differed between the two species, occurring in bivalents M(6) and S(9) of O. rufipes and M(6) and M(7) of E. fusiformsi. The rDNA sites revealed by FISH coincided with the number and position of the active NORs detected by AgNO(3) staining. The variability in chromosomal markers accounted for the karyotype differentiation observed in the tribe Abracrini.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.