Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26994292›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2016

Quantitative Assessment of Eye Phenotypes for Functional Genetic Studies Using Drosophila melanogaster.

Janani Iyer, Qingyu Wang, Thanh Le, Lucilla Pizzo, Sebastian Grönke, Surendra S Ambegaokar, Yuzuru Imai, Ashutosh Srivastava, Beatriz Llamusí Troisí, Graeme Mardon and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Critical roles ofLife science alliance · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Restoration of Shal/KCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025
    Article
  12. Quantification of variegatedBiology methods & protocols · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Flynotyper 2.0: An updated tool for rapid quantitative assessment ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    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

17 authors.

Janani IyerDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania 16802.
Qingyu WangBioinformatics and Genomics Program, The Huck Institutes of of Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.
Thanh LeBioinformatics and Genomics Program, The Huck Institutes of of Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.
Lucilla PizzoDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania 16802.
Sebastian GrönkeBiological Mechanisms of Ageing, Max-Planck Institute for Biology of Aging, 50931 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0598-4945
Surendra S AmbegaokarDepartment of Botany and Microbiology, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio 43015.
Yuzuru ImaiDepartment of Research for Parkinson's Disease, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 113-8421 Tokyo, Japan.
Ashutosh SrivastavaDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania 16802.
Beatriz Llamusí TroisíTranslational Genetics Group, Department of Genetics, University of Valencia, 46100 Burjassot, Spain Program of Rare Diseases, Incliva Health Research Institute, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Graeme MardonDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030 Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030.
Ruben ArteroTranslational Genetics Group, Department of Genetics, University of Valencia, 46100 Burjassot, Spain Program of Rare Diseases, Incliva Health Research Institute, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
George R JacksonDepartment of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030.
Adrian M IsaacsDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom.
Linda PartridgeBiological Mechanisms of Ageing, Max-Planck Institute for Biology of Aging, 50931 Cologne, Germany.
Bingwei LuDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California 94305.
Justin P KumarDepartment of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
Santhosh GirirajanDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania 16802 Bioinformatics and Genomics Program, The Huck Institutes of of Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 sxg47@psu.edu.

Funding

VISION RESEARCH CENTERP30EY002520 · NEI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Samuel M Wu · 1985 to 2026
$14.8M
Repression of Non-Ocular Fates by the SIX and EYA Genes During Specification and Patterning of the RetinaR01EY014863 · NEI · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI KUMAR, JUSTIN P · 2003 to 2017
$4.3M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY002520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

About two-thirds of the vital genes in the Drosophila genome are involved in eye development, making the fly eye an excellent genetic system to study cellular function and development, neurodevelopment/degeneration, and complex diseases such as cancer and diabetes. We developed a novel computational method, implemented as Flynotyper software (http://flynotyper.sourceforge.net), to quantitatively assess the morphological defects in the Drosophila eye resulting from genetic alterations affecting basic cellular and developmental processes. Flynotyper utilizes a series of image processing operations to automatically detect the fly eye and the individual ommatidium, and calculates a phenotypic score as a measure of the disorderliness of ommatidial arrangement in the fly eye. As a proof of principle, we tested our method by analyzing the defects due to eye-specific knockdown of Drosophila orthologs of 12 neurodevelopmental genes to accurately document differential sensitivities of these genes to dosage alteration. We also evaluated eye images from six independent studies assessing the effect of overexpression of repeats, candidates from peptide library screens, and modifiers of neurotoxicity and developmental processes on eye morphology, and show strong concordance with the original assessment. We further demonstrate the utility of this method by analyzing 16 modifiers of sine oculis obtained from two genome-wide deficiency screens of Drosophila and accurately quantifying the effect of its enhancers and suppressors during eye development. Our method will complement existing assays for eye phenotypes, and increase the accuracy of studies that use fly eyes for functional evaluation of genes and genetic interactions.

Indexed as

EyeGenetic Association StudiesPhenotypeAlgorithmsAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedDrosophila melanogasterDrosophila ProteinsGene Knockdown TechniquesModels, GeneticNeurogenesisReproducibility of ResultsDrosophila ProteinsDrosophila melanogasterhuman disease modelsmodifier screensneurodevelopmental disordersommatidiarough eye

Identifiers

PMID26994292
PMCPMC4856093

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.