Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23984183›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of evolutionary biology2013

RNA-Mediated Gene Duplication and Retroposons: Retrogenes, LINEs, SINEs, and Sequence Specificity.

Kazuhiko Ohshima

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of evolutionary biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Copy number evolution of conserved noncoding RNA gene families across mammals.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kazuhiko OhshimaGraduate School of Bioscience, Nagahama Institute of Bio-Science and Technology, Nagahama 526-0829, Japan.
Nagahama Institute of Bio-Science and Technology · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A substantial number of "retrogenes" that are derived from the mRNA of various intron-containing genes have been reported. A class of mammalian retroposons, long interspersed element-1 (LINE1, L1), has been shown to be involved in the reverse transcription of retrogenes (or processed pseudogenes) and non-autonomous short interspersed elements (SINEs). The 3'-end sequences of various SINEs originated from a corresponding LINE. As the 3'-untranslated regions of several LINEs are essential for retroposition, these LINEs presumably require "stringent" recognition of the 3'-end sequence of the RNA template. However, the 3'-ends of mammalian L1s do not exhibit any similarity to SINEs, except for the presence of 3'-poly(A) repeats. Since the 3'-poly(A) repeats of L1 and Alu SINE are critical for their retroposition, L1 probably recognizes the poly(A) repeats, thereby mobilizing not only Alu SINE but also cytosolic mRNA. Many flowering plants only harbor L1-clade LINEs and a significant number of SINEs with poly(A) repeats, but no homology to the LINEs. Moreover, processed pseudogenes have also been found in flowering plants. I propose that the ancestral L1-clade LINE in the common ancestor of green plants may have recognized a specific RNA template, with stringent recognition then becoming relaxed during the course of plant evolution.

Identifiers

PMID23984183
PMCPMC3747384
OpenAlexW2054747864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.