ArticleComparative cytogenetics2015
Comparative cytogenetic study of three Macrolophus species (Heteroptera, Miridae).
Article in Comparative cytogenetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Jekyll or Hyde? The genome (and more) of Nesidiocoris tenuis, a zoophytophagous predatory bug that is both a biological control agent and a pest.Insect molecular biology · 2021Article
- Elliptic Fourier Analysis in the Study of the Male Genitalia to Discriminate Three Macrolophus Species (Hemiptera: Miridae).Insects · 2017Article
- Heterochromatin base pair composition and diversification in holocentric chromosomes of kissing bugs (Hemiptera, Reduviidae).Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur, 1839) (Insecta, Heteroptera, Miridae) is a predator of key vegetable crop pests applied as a biocontrol agent in the Mediterranean region. Macrolophus pygmaeus and Macrolophus melanotoma (A. Costa, 1853) are cryptic species with great morphological similarity which results in their misidentification and negative consequences for the conservation of their populations on greenhouse and outdoor crops. In order to find out specific markers for their separation we studied the karyotype, male meiosis and heterochromatin composition of these species and additionally of a third species (as a reference one), Macrolophus costalis Fieber, 1858. We demonstrate here that all the three species share achiasmate male meiosis and sex chromosome pre-reduction. On the other hand, the species differ in karyotype, with 2n=28 (26+XY) in Macrolophus pygmaeus, 2n=27 (24+X1X2Y) in Macrolophus costalis, and 2n=34 (32+XY) in Macrolophus melanotoma, and heterochromatin distribution and composition. In addition, the species differ in sperm morphology: sperm cells of Macrolophus costalis are significantly longer with longer head and tail than those of Macrolophus melanotoma and Macrolophus pygmaeus, whereas sperm cells of Macrolophus melanotoma have a longer tail than those of Macrolophus pygmaeus. All these characters can be used as markers to identify the species, in particular the cryptic species Macrolophus melanotoma and Macrolophus pygmaeus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.