Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27168931›Full record

ArticleEvoDevo2016

Composition and genomic organization of arthropod Hox clusters.

Ryan M Pace, Miodrag Grbić, Lisa M Nagy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EvoDevo, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. eLife · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Seeking Sense in the Hox Gene Cluster.Journal of developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Ryan M PaceDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA ; Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8771-2603
Miodrag GrbićDepartment of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B7 Canada ; Universidad de la Rioja, 26006 Logroño, Spain.
Lisa M NagyDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 USA.
University of Arizona · USWestern University · CA

Funding

GRADUATE TRAINING IN BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGYT32GM008659 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI CAPALDI, ANDREW PAUL, WEINERT, TED A. · 1997 to 2019
$5.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008659
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ancestral arthropod is believed to have had a clustered arrangement of ten Hox genes. Within arthropods, Hox gene mutations result in transformation of segment identities. Despite the fact that variation in segment number/character was common in the diversification of arthropods, few examples of Hox gene gains/losses have been correlated with morphological evolution. Furthermore, a full appreciation of the variation in the genomic arrangement of Hox genes in extant arthropods has not been recognized, as genome sequences from each major arthropod clade have not been reported until recently. Initial genomic analysis of the chelicerate Tetranychus urticae suggested that loss of Hox genes and Hox gene clustering might be more common than previously assumed. To further characterize the genomic evolution of arthropod Hox genes, we compared the genomic arrangement and general characteristics of Hox genes from representative taxa from each arthropod subphylum.

resultsIn agreement with others, we find arthropods generally contain ten Hox genes arranged in a common orientation in the genome, with an increasing number of sampled species missing either Hox3 or abdominal-A orthologs. The genomic clustering of Hox genes in species we surveyed varies significantly, ranging from 0.3 to 13.6 Mb. In all species sampled, arthropod Hox genes are dispersed in the genome relative to the vertebrate Mus musculus. Differences in Hox cluster size arise from variation in the number of intervening genes, intergenic spacing, and the size of introns and UTRs. In the arthropods surveyed, Hox gene duplications are rare and four microRNAs are, in general, conserved in similar genomic positions relative to the Hox genes.

conclusionsThe tightly clustered Hox complexes found in the vertebrates are not evident within arthropods, and differential patterns of Hox gene dispersion are found throughout the arthropods. The comparative genomic data continue to support an ancestral arthropod Hox cluster of ten genes with a shared orientation, with four Hox gene-associated miRNAs, although the degree of dispersion between genes in an ancestral cluster remains uncertain. Hox3 and abdominal-A orthologs have been lost in multiple, independent lineages, and current data support a model in which inversions of the Abdominal-B locus that result in the loss of abdominal-A correlate with reduced trunk segmentation.

Indexed as

ArthropodChelicerateDaphniaDevelopmentEvolutionHoxIxodesSegmentationTetranychus

Identifiers

PMID27168931
PMCPMC4862073
OpenAlexW2345404113

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.