ArticlePLoS genetics2014
Reviving the dead: history and reactivation of an extinct l1.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Human L1 Transposition Dynamics Unraveled with Functional Data Analysis.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Comparative genomic analyses illuminate the distinct evolution of megabats within Chiroptera.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Contrasted patterns of evolution of the LINE-1 retrotransposon in perissodactyls: the history of a LINE-1 extinction.Mobile DNA · 2018Article
- Centromeric enrichment of LINE-1 retrotransposons and its significance for the chromosome evolution of Phyllostomid bats.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2017Article
- LINEs between Species: Evolutionary Dynamics of LINE-1 Retrotransposons across the Eukaryotic Tree of Life.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- The Evolution of LINE-1 in Vertebrates.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- Evolutionary histories of transposable elements in the genome of the largest living marsupial carnivore, the Tasmanian devil.Molecular biology and evolution · 2015Article
- The Zinc-Finger Antiviral Protein ZAP Inhibits LINE and Alu Retrotransposition.PLoS genetics · 2015Article
- The Influence of LINE-1 and SINE Retrotransposons on Mammalian Genomes.Microbiology spectrum · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although L1 sequences are present in the genomes of all placental mammals and marsupials examined to date, their activity was lost in the megabat family, Pteropodidae, ∼24 million years ago. To examine the characteristics of L1s prior to their extinction, we analyzed the evolutionary history of L1s in the genome of a megabat, Pteropus vampyrus, and found a pattern of periodic L1 expansion and quiescence. In contrast to the well-characterized L1s in human and mouse, megabat genomes have accommodated two or more simultaneously active L1 families throughout their evolutionary history, and major peaks of L1 deposition into the genome always involved multiple families. We compared the consensus sequences of the two major megabat L1 families at the time of their extinction to consensus L1s of a variety of mammalian species. Megabat L1s are comparable to the other mammalian L1s in terms of adenosine content and conserved amino acids in the open reading frames (ORFs). However, the intergenic region (IGR) of the reconstructed element from the more active family is dramatically longer than the IGR of well-characterized human and mouse L1s. We synthesized the reconstructed element from this L1 family and tested the ability of its components to support retrotransposition in a tissue culture assay. Both ORFs are capable of supporting retrotransposition, while the IGR is inhibitory to retrotransposition, especially when combined with either of the reconstructed ORFs. We dissected the inhibitory effect of the IGR by testing truncated and shuffled versions and found that length is a key factor, but not the only one affecting inhibition of retrotransposition. Although the IGR is inhibitory to retrotransposition, this inhibition does not account for the extinction of L1s in megabats. Overall, the evolution of the L1 sequence or the quiescence of L1 is unlikely the reason of L1 extinction.
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.