Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24709859›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Deep investigation of Arabidopsis thaliana junk DNA reveals a continuum between repetitive elements and genomic dark matter.

Florian Maumus, Hadi Quesneville

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Taxonomy, Phylogeny, Genomes, and Repeatomes in the SubgeneraInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparative Analysis of Active LTR Retrotransposons in Sunflower (International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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.

Florian MaumusUR1164 URGI - Research Unit in Genomics-Info, INRA, Versailles, France.
Hadi QuesnevilleUR1164 URGI - Research Unit in Genomics-Info, INRA, Versailles, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eukaryotic genomes contain highly variable amounts of DNA with no apparent function. This so-called junk DNA is composed of two components: repeated and repeat-derived sequences (together referred to as the repeatome), and non-annotated sequences also known as genomic dark matter. Because of their high duplication rates as compared to other genomic features, transposable elements are predominant contributors to the repeatome and the products of their decay is thought to be a major source of genomic dark matter. Determining the origin and composition of junk DNA is thus important to help understanding genome evolution as well as host biology. In this study, we have used a combination of tools enabling to show that the repeatome from the small and reducing A. thaliana genome is significantly larger than previously thought. Furthermore, we present the concepts and results from a series of innovative approaches suggesting that a significant amount of the A. thaliana dark matter is of repetitive origin. As a tentative standard for the community, we propose a deep compendium annotation of the A. thaliana repeatome that may help addressing farther genome evolution as well as transcriptional and epigenetic regulation in this model plant.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisDNA, IntergenicDNA, PlantGenome, PlantGenomicsMolecular Sequence AnnotationRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidDNA, IntergenicDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID24709859
PMCPMC3978025

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.