Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23084572›Full record

ReviewTrends in microbiology2013

The function and evolution of the Aspergillus genome.

John G Gibbons, Antonis Rokas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Aspergillosis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Detection ofFood chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Identification of closely related species inFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Genetic Diversity of Human Fungal Pathogens.Current clinical microbiology reports · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  10. Microorganisms · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Draft Genome Sequences of FourMicrobiology resource announcements · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

John G GibbonsDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA.
Antonis Rokas

Funding

Characterizing the genomic patterns of variation in the fungal pathogen AspergillF31AI091343 · NIAID · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GIBBONS, JOHN G · 2010 to 2011
$55k
NIAID NIH HHS F31 AI091343NIAID NIH HHS F31AI091343-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species in the filamentous fungal genus Aspergillus display a wide diversity of lifestyles and are of great importance to humans. The decoding of genome sequences from a dozen species that vary widely in their degree of evolutionary affinity has galvanized studies of the function and evolution of the Aspergillus genome in clinical, industrial, and agricultural environments. Here, we synthesize recent key findings that shed light on the architecture of the Aspergillus genome, on the molecular foundations of the genus' astounding dexterity and diversity in secondary metabolism, and on the genetic underpinnings of virulence in Aspergillus fumigatus, one of the most lethal fungal pathogens. Many of these insights dramatically expand our knowledge of fungal and microbial eukaryote genome evolution and function and argue that Aspergillus constitutes a superb model clade for the study of functional and comparative genomics.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationGenome, FungalMolecular EpidemiologyAspergillus fumigatusHumansIndustrial MicrobiologyMycologyVirulence

Identifiers

PMID23084572
PMCPMC3534798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.