Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25712227›Full record

ArticleHeredity2015

A molecular perspective on a complex polymorphic inversion system with cytological evidence of multiply reused breakpoints.

D J Orengo, E Puerma, M Papaceit, C Segarra, M Aguadé

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Cyclically SeasonalFrontiers in genetics · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Dense gene physical maps of the non-model species Drosophila subobscura.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

D J OrengoDepartament de Genètica, Facultat de Biologia, i Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
E PuermaDepartament de Genètica, Facultat de Biologia, i Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
M PapaceitDepartament de Genètica, Facultat de Biologia, i Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
C SegarraDepartament de Genètica, Facultat de Biologia, i Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
M AguadéDepartament de Genètica, Facultat de Biologia, i Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome sequence comparison across the Drosophila genus revealed that some fixed inversion breakpoints had been multiply reused at this long timescale. Cytological studies of Drosophila inversion polymorphism had previously shown that, also at this shorter timescale, some breakpoints had been multiply reused. The paucity of molecularly characterized polymorphic inversion breakpoints has so far precluded contrasting whether cytologically shared breakpoints of these relatively young inversions are actually reused at the molecular level. The E chromosome of Drosophila subobscura stands out because it presents several inversion complexes. This is the case of the E1+2+9+3 arrangement that originated from the ancestral Est arrangement through the sequential accumulation of four inversions (E1, E2, E9 and E3) sharing some breakpoints. We recently identified the breakpoints of inversions E1 and E2, which allowed establishing reuse at the molecular level of the cytologically shared breakpoint of these inversions. Here, we identified and sequenced the breakpoints of inversions E9 and E3, because they share breakpoints at sections 58D and 64C with those of inversions E1 and E2. This has allowed establishing that E9 and E3 originated through the staggered-break mechanism. Most importantly, sequence comparison has revealed the multiple reuse at the molecular level of the proximal breakpoint (section 58D), which would have been used at least by inversions E2, E9 and E3. In contrast, the distal breakpoint (section 64C) might have been only reused once by inversions E1 and E2, because the distal E3 breakpoint is displaced >70 kb from the other breakpoint limits.

Indexed as

Chromosome BreakpointsChromosome InversionChromosomes, InsectAnimalsChromosome WalkingDrosophilaMolecular Sequence DataSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID25712227
PMCPMC4434253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.