Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27519651›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Comprehensive repeatome annotation reveals strong potential impact of repetitive elements on tomato ripening.

Ophélie Jouffroy, Surya Saha, Lukas Mueller, Hadi Quesneville, Florian Maumus

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sex chromosome evolution in haploid plants: Microchromosomes, disappearing chromosomes, and giant chromosomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Transposon age and non-CG methylation.Nature communications · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ophélie JouffroyURGI, INRA, Université Paris-Saclay, 78026, Versailles, France.
Surya SahaBoyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Lukas MuellerBoyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Hadi QuesnevilleURGI, INRA, Université Paris-Saclay, 78026, Versailles, France.
Florian MaumusURGI, INRA, Université Paris-Saclay, 78026, Versailles, France. florian.maumus@versailles.inra.fr.
Ithaca College · USUniversité Paris-Saclay · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlant genomes are populated by different types of repetitive elements including transposable elements (TEs) and simple sequence repeats (SSRs) that can have a strong impact on genome size and dynamic as well as on the regulation of gene transcription. At least two-thirds of the tomato genome is composed of repeats. While their bulk impact on genome organization has been recently revealed by whole genome assembly, their influence on tomato biology and phenotype remains largely unaddressed. More specifically, the effects and roles of DNA repeats on the maturation of fleshy fruits, which is a complex process of key agro-economic interest, still needs to be investigated comprehensively and tomato is arguably an excellent model for such study.

resultsWe have performed a comprehensive annotation of the tomato repeatome to explore its potential impact on tomato genome composition and gene transcription. Our results show that the tomato genome can be fractioned into three compartments with different gene and repeat density, each compartment presenting contrasting repeat and gene composition, repeat-gene associations and different gene transcriptional levels. In the context of fruit ripening, we found that repeats are present in the majority of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) and thousands of repeat-associated DMRs are found in gene proximity including hundreds that are differentially regulated. Furthermore, we found that repeats are also present in the proximity of binding sites of the key ripening protein RIN. We also observed that some repeat families are present at unexpected high frequency in the proximity of genes that are differentially expressed during tomato ripening.

conclusionAltogether, our study emphasizes the fractionation as defined by repeat content in the tomato genome and enables to further characterize the specificities of each genomic compartment. Additionally, our results present strong associations between differentially regulated genes, differentially methylated regions and repeats, suggesting a potential adaptive function of repeats in tomato ripening. Our work therefore provides significant perspectives for the understanding of the impact of repeats on the maturation of fleshy fruits.

Indexed as

Chromosomes, PlantDNA MethylationDNA, PlantFruitGene Expression Regulation, PlantPlant LeavesPlant ProteinsRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidSolanum lycopersicumDNA, PlantPlant ProteinsDNA methylationFruit ripeningTomatoTransposable elements

Identifiers

PMID27519651
PMCPMC4981986
OpenAlexW2517212974

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.