ArticleBMC genomics2016
Deep landscape update of dispersed and tandem repeats in the genome model of the red jungle fowl, Gallus gallus, using a series of de novo investigating tools.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding the Avian Missing Gene Mystery: Dot Chromosomes Unmask Extensive Gene Loss and Novel Genetic Instability.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Whole genome sequences of 234 indigenous African chickens from Ethiopia.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Fourth Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2022.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2022Review
- Phylogenomics of the Maverick Virus-Like Mobile Genetic Elements of Vertebrates.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- The C-terminal Domain of piggyBac Transposase Is Not Required for DNA Transposition.Journal of molecular biology · 2021Article
- Sequence properties of certain GC rich avian genes, their origins and absence from genome assemblies: case studies.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Evaluation of a Chicken 600K SNP genotyping array in non-model species of grouse.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- But where did the centromeres go in the chicken genome models?Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2018Review
- Article
- The future of transposable element annotation and their classification in the light of functional genomics - what we can learn from the fables of Jean de la Fontaine?Mobile genetic elements · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe program RepeatMasker and the database Repbase-ISB are part of the most widely used strategy for annotating repeats in animal genomes. They have been used to show that avian genomes have a lower repeat content (8-12 %) than the sequenced genomes of many vertebrate species (30-55 %). However, the efficiency of such a library-based strategies is dependent on the quality and completeness of the sequences in the database that is used. An alternative to these library based methods are methods that identify repeats de novo. These alternative methods have existed for a least a decade and may be more powerful than the library based methods. We have used an annotation strategy involving several complementary de novo tools to determine the repeat content of the model genome galGal4 (1.04 Gbp), including identifying simple sequence repeats (SSRs), tandem repeats and transposable elements (TEs).
resultsWe annotated over one Gbp. of the galGal4 genome and showed that it is composed of approximately 19 % SSRs and TEs repeats. Furthermore, we estimate that the actual genome of the red jungle fowl contains about 31-35 % repeats. We find that library-based methods tend to overestimate TE diversity. These results have a major impact on the current understanding of repeats distributions throughout chromosomes in the red jungle fowl.
conclusionsOur results are a proof of concept of the reliability of using de novo tools to annotate repeats in large animal genomes. They have also revealed issues that will need to be resolved in order to develop gold-standard methodologies for annotating repeats in eukaryote genomes.
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.