ArticleChromosoma1989
Rodent common fragile sites: are they conserved? Evidence from mouse and rat.
Article in Chromosoma, 1989. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fragile sites, chromosomal lesions, tandem repeats, and disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Small RNAs, Big Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- The Protective Role of Dormant Origins in Response to Replicative Stress.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Review
- Are common fragile sites merely structural domains or highly organized "functional" units susceptible to oncogenic stress?Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2014Review
- Updating the mechanisms of common fragile site instability: how to reconcile the different views?Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2014Review
- A high resolution map of mammalian X chromosome fragile regions assessed by large-scale comparative genomics.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2014Article
- A genome-wide analysis of common fragile sites: what features determine chromosomal instability in the human genome?Genome research · 2012Article
- Topoisomerase II- and condensin-dependent breakage of MEC1ATR-sensitive fragile sites occurs independently of spindle tension, anaphase, or cytokinesis.PLoS genetics · 2012Article
- Review
- Chromosomal instability in Afrotheria: fragile sites, evolutionary breakpoints and phylogenetic inference from genome sequence assemblies.BMC evolutionary biology · 2007Article
- Common fragile sites are conserved features of human and mouse chromosomes and relate to large active genes.Genome research · 2006Article
- Article
- Chromosome breakage at a major fragile site associated with P-glycoprotein gene amplification in multidrug-resistant CHO cells.Molecular and cellular biology · 1994Article
- Relationship of eukaryotic DNA replication to committed gene expression: general theory for gene control.Microbiological reviews · 1991Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nineteen fragile sites induced by aphidicolin in lymphocyte cultures from the laboratory mouse are documented. These sites are compared with previously described fragile sites induced in mouse fibroblast systems, and then with those reported on chromosomes which have been evolutionarily conserved between the mouse and the laboratory rat. Of a total of 38 fragile sites thus far identified in mouse fibroblasts and lymphocytes, only 4 sites are common to the two cell types; 34 sites show no correspondence of loci. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear, but it is possible that these data may indicate some degree of tissue specificity of fragile site expression in the mouse. Eight autosomes in the mouse and rat retain straightforward and nearly complete banding homology. To test the hypothesis that fragile sites are conserved between the two species, we compared these eight autosomes with regard to number and distribution of fragile site loci. A total of 30 fragile sites is distributed over the conserved chromosomes. Only 4 (possibly 5) are common to both species; 18 are found in the rat but not the mouse, and 4 are found in the mouse but not the rat. Of the 4 shared sites, notable differences in frequency of expression exist. Our comparisons show that: (1) a small number of fragile sites is conserved; (2) a large number of fragile sites is not conserved, and (3) some sites which are conserved are quite different in the frequency at which they are expressed in the two species, indicating that the sites themselves may have undergone evolutionary change.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.