ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2014
The split genes of Nanoarchaeum equitans have not originated in its lineage and have been merged in another Nanoarchaeota: a reply to Podar et al.
Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparisons between small ribosomal RNA and theoretical minimal RNA ring secondary structures confirm phylogenetic and structural accretion histories.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The indefinable term 'prokaryote' and the polyphyletic origin of genes.Journal of genetics · 2017Article
- Origins of tmRNA: the missing link in the birth of protein synthesis?Nucleic acids research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
I reply to the suggestion of Podar et al. (2013) that the split genes of Nanoarchaeun equitans are a derived character, showing that their analysis is mistaken. In particular, I show that the split genes both proteins and tRNAs have not been split in N. equitans and have been on the contrary merged in the nanoarchaeon sequenced recently by Podar et al. (2013). This implies that the main argument of Podar et al. (2013) that there should be: "a unique propensity for splitting in the Nanoarchaeota that is most dramatically manifested in the Nanoarchaeum equitans lineage" is false. On the other hand, the analysis seems to favor the hypothesis that the split genes are an ancestral character. This would strengthen to greater extent a model for the origin of the tRNA molecule.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24560724What 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.