Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26510465›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Genetic analysis of Indian tasar silkmoth (Antheraea mylitta) populations.

Saikat Chakraborty, M Muthulakshmi, Deena Vardhini, P Jayaprakash, J Nagaraju, K P Arunkumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Saikat ChakrabortyCentre of Excellence for Genetics and Genomics of Silkmoths, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Tuljaguda, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001, India.
M MuthulakshmiCentre of Excellence for Genetics and Genomics of Silkmoths, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Tuljaguda, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001, India.
Deena VardhiniCentre of Excellence for Genetics and Genomics of Silkmoths, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Tuljaguda, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001, India.
P JayaprakashMuga silkworm seed organization and Eri silkworm seed organization, Central Silk Board, Guwahati 781006, India.
J NagarajuCentre of Excellence for Genetics and Genomics of Silkmoths, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Tuljaguda, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001, India.
K P ArunkumarCentre of Excellence for Genetics and Genomics of Silkmoths, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Tuljaguda, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indian tasar silkmoth, Antheraea mylitta is an economically important wild silkmoth species distributed across India. A number of morphologically and ethologically well-defined ecotypes are known for this species that differ in their primary food plant specificity. Most of these ecotypes do not interbreed in nature, but are able to produce offspring under captive conditions. Microsatellite markers were developed for A. mylitta, and out of these, ten well-behaved microsatellite loci were used to analyze the population structure of different ecoraces. A total of 154 individual moths belonging to eight different ecoraces, were screened at each locus. Hierarchical analysis of population structure using Analysis of MOlecular VAriance (AMOVA) revealed significant structuring (FST = 0.154) and considerable inbreeding (FIS = 0.505). A significant isolation by distance was also observed. The number of possible population clusters was investigated using distance method, Bayesian algorithm and self organization maps (SOM). The first two methods revealed two distinct clusters, whereas the SOM showed the different ecoraces not to be clearly differentiated. These results suggest that although there is a large degree of phenotypic variation among the different ecoraces of A. mylitta, genetically they are not very different, and the phenotypic differences may largely be a result of their respective ecology.

Indexed as

Genetic LociGenetic VariationMicrosatellite RepeatsModels, GeneticAnimalsBombyxIndia

Identifiers

PMID26510465
PMCPMC4625160

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.