Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25165636›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

Recent genome reduction of Wolbachia in Drosophila recens targets phage WO and narrows candidates for reproductive parasitism.

Jason A Metcalf, Minhee Jo, Sarah R Bordenstein, John Jaenike, Seth R Bordenstein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Discovery of a novelFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Two Newly IntroducedApplied and environmental microbiology · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evolution ofPeerJ · 2020
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jason A MetcalfDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN , USA.
Minhee JoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN , USA.
Sarah R BordensteinDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN , USA.
John JaenikeDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester , Rochester, NY , USA.
Seth R BordensteinDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN , USA ; Department of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN , USA.
Vanderbilt University · USUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007347 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER S. · 1985 to 2023
$26.3M
Molecular Evolution and Life Cycle of Wolbachia BacteriophageR01GM085163 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BORDENSTEIN, SETH R · 2008 to 2012
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM085163NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007347
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wolbachia are maternally transmitted endosymbionts that often alter their arthropod hosts' biology to favor the success of infected females, and they may also serve as a speciation microbe driving reproductive isolation. Two of these host manipulations include killing males outright and reducing offspring survival when infected males mate with uninfected females, a phenomenon known as cytoplasmic incompatibility. Little is known about the mechanisms behind these phenotypes, but interestingly either effect can be caused by the same Wolbachia strain when infecting different hosts. For instance, wRec causes cytoplasmic incompatibility in its native host Drosophila recens and male killing in D. subquinaria. The discovery of prophage WO elements in most arthropod Wolbachia has generated the hypothesis that WO may encode genes involved in these reproductive manipulations. However, PCR screens for the WO minor capsid gene indicated that wRec lacks phage WO. Thus, wRec seemed to provide an example where phage WO is not needed for Wolbachia-induced reproductive manipulation. To enable investigation of the mechanism of phenotype switching in different host backgrounds, and to examine the unexpected absence of phage WO, we sequenced the genome of wRec. Analyses reveal that wRec diverged from wMel approximately 350,000 years ago, mainly by genome reduction in the phage regions. While it lost the minor capsid gene used in standard PCR screens for phage WO, it retained two regions encompassing 33 genes, several of which have previously been associated with reproductive parasitism. Thus, WO gene involvement in reproductive manipulation cannot be excluded and reliance on single gene PCR should not be used to rule out the presence of phage WO in Wolbachia. Additionally, the genome sequence for wRec will enable transcriptomic and proteomic studies that may help elucidate the Wolbachia mechanisms of altered reproductive manipulations associated with host switching, perhaps among the 33 remaining phage genes.

Indexed as

Bacteriophage WOCytoplasmic incompatibilityEndosymbiosisGenome evolutionWolbachia

Identifiers

PMID25165636
PMCPMC4137656
OpenAlexW2143457896

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.