Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25658766›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comparative chromosome painting in six species of Oligoryzomys (Rodentia, Sigmodontinae) and the karyotype evolution of the genus.

Camilla Bruno Di-Nizo, Karen Ventura, Malcolm Andrew Ferguson-Smith, Patricia Caroline Mary O'Brien, Yatiyo Yonenaga-Yassuda, Maria José de J Silva

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A review ofPeerJ · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Camilla Bruno Di-NizoLaboratório de Ecologia e Evolução, Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Karen VenturaDepartamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Cambridge Resource Centre for Comparative Genomics, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Instituto de Recursos Naturais-Universidade Federal de Itajubá, Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Malcolm Andrew Ferguson-SmithCambridge Resource Centre for Comparative Genomics, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Patricia Caroline Mary O'BrienCambridge Resource Centre for Comparative Genomics, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Yatiyo Yonenaga-YassudaDepartamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria José de J SilvaLaboratório de Ecologia e Evolução, Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Genomics (United Kingdom) · GBInstituto Butantan · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oligoryzomys belongs to the tribe Oryzomyini, and contains about 22 species. Diploid numbers range from 2n = 44 in Oligoryzomys sp. 2 to 2n = 72 in O. utiaritensis and phylogenetic relationships are not well defined. The high morphological convergence leads to misidentification of taxonomic entities and the species are often identified by chromosomal characters. Until now, the genus has been studied only by classical cytogenetic approaches. To understand the chromosomal evolution of Oligoryzomys, we developed chromosome probes from a female of Oligoryzomys moojeni (OMO) with 2n = 70 and hybridized to other five Oligoryzomys species. The probes painted 31 segments on O. fornesi (OFO) with 2n = 62; 32 segments on O. microtis (OMI), 2n = 64; 33 segments on O. nigripes (ONI), 2n = 62 and on O. rupestris (ORU), 2n = 46; and 34 on Oligoryzomys sp. 2 (OSP), 2n = 44. OMO probes 4 and 5 showed a syntenic association in O. fornesi, O. microtis and O. nigripes and were also presented in the same pair, although disrupted, in O. rupestris and Oligoryzomys sp. 2. Concerning O. rupestris and Oligoryzomys sp. 2, species with the lowest diploid numbers of the genus, a total of 8 probes hybridized to 11 segments on the largest pair of ORU 1 and 9 probes hybridized to 12 segments on OSP 1. Also, OMO 6 painted three segments in ORU, corresponding to the proximal segment of ORU 2q, and the whole of ORU 19 and 20. In OSP, the segment corresponding to ORU 20 was homologous to OSP 1p. OMO X showed signals of hybridization in both X and Y chromosomes. Extensive chromosomal rearrangements, that could not be detected by classical cytogenetic techniques, such as pericentric inversions or repositioning of centromeres, Robertsonian rearrangements and tandem fusions/fissions, as well as gain/activation or loss/inactivation of centromeres and telomeric sequences have driven the huge genome reshuffling in these closely related species.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAnimalsBrazilCentromereChromosome AberrationsChromosome BandingChromosome PaintingChromosomes, MammalianDiploidyFemaleGeographyKaryotypingMalePhylogenySigmodontinaeSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25658766
PMCPMC4320059
OpenAlexW2040024342

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.