Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26092792›Full record

ArticleFungal genetics and biology : FG & B2015

Yeast recombination-based cloning as an efficient way of constructing vectors for Zymoseptoria tritici.

S Kilaru, G Steinberg

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fungal genetics and biology : FG & B, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S KilaruSchool of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QD, UK. Electronic address: S.Kilaru@exeter.ac.uk.
G SteinbergSchool of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QD, UK.
University of Exeter · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I025956/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many pathogenic fungi are genetically tractable. Analysis of their cellular organization and invasion mechanisms underpinning virulence determinants profits from exploiting such molecular tools as fluorescent fusion proteins or conditional mutant protein alleles. Generation of these tools requires efficient cloning methods, as vector construction is often a rate-limiting step. Here, we introduce an efficient yeast recombination-based cloning (YRBC) method to construct vectors for the fungus Zymoseptoria tritici. This method is of low cost and avoids dependency on the availability of restriction enzyme sites in the DNA sequence, as needed in more conventional restriction/ligation-based cloning procedures. Furthermore, YRBC avoids modification of the DNA of interest, indeed this potential risk limits the use of site-specific recombination systems, such as Gateway cloning. Instead, in YRBC, multiple DNA fragments, with 30bp overlap sequences, are transformed into Saccharomyces cerevisiae, whereupon homologous recombination generates the vector in a single step. Here, we provide a detailed experimental protocol and four vectors, each encoding a different dominant selectable marker cassette, that enable YRBC of constructs to be used in the wheat pathogen Z. tritici.

Indexed as

Homologous RecombinationAscomycotaCloning, MolecularGenetics, MicrobialGenetic VectorsMolecular BiologyCarboxin and BASTAGeneticinHygromycinMycosphaerella graminicolaSelectable markersSeptoria tritici blotch

Identifiers

PMID26092792
PMCPMC4502459
OpenAlexW592697454

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.