Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25524309›Full record

ReviewInsect molecular biology2015

We can't all be supermodels: the value of comparative transcriptomics to the study of non-model insects.

Sara J Oppenheim, Richard H Baker, Sabrina Simon, Rob DeSalle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insect molecular biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Odorant-Binding and Chemosensory Proteins inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. A molecular toolkit for superorganisms.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Sara J OppenheimDepartment of Entomology, Division of Invertebrates, Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA.
Richard H Baker
Sabrina Simon
Rob DeSalle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insects are the most diverse group of organisms on the planet. Variation in gene expression lies at the heart of this biodiversity and recent advances in sequencing technology have spawned a revolution in researchers' ability to survey tissue-specific transcriptional complexity across a wide range of insect taxa. Increasingly, studies are using a comparative approach (across species, sexes and life stages) that examines the transcriptional basis of phenotypic diversity within an evolutionary context. In the present review, we summarize much of this research, focusing in particular on three critical aspects of insect biology: morphological development and plasticity; physiological response to the environment; and sexual dimorphism. A common feature that is emerging from these investigations concerns the dynamic nature of transcriptome evolution as indicated by rapid changes in the overall pattern of gene expression, the differential expression of numerous genes with unknown function, and the incorporation of novel, lineage-specific genes into the transcriptional profile.

Indexed as

AnimalsBase SequenceBiological EvolutionFemaleGene ExpressionGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGenetic VariationInsectaMalePhenotypeRNASex CharacteristicsStress, PhysiologicalTranscriptomeRNAcomparative transcriptomicsdifferential expressioninsectsNGSnon-model organismRNA-Seq

Identifiers

PMID25524309
PMCPMC4383654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.