Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27542599›Full record

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.

Sébastien Guizard, Benoît Piégu, Peter Arensburger, Florian Guillou, Yves Bigot

Abstract 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Fourth Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2022.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2018
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Sébastien GuizardPhysiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, UMR INRA-CNRS 7247, PRC, 37380, Nouzilly, France.
Benoît PiéguPhysiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, UMR INRA-CNRS 7247, PRC, 37380, Nouzilly, France.
Peter ArensburgerPhysiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, UMR INRA-CNRS 7247, PRC, 37380, Nouzilly, France.
Florian GuillouPhysiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, UMR INRA-CNRS 7247, PRC, 37380, Nouzilly, France.
Yves BigotPhysiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, UMR INRA-CNRS 7247, PRC, 37380, Nouzilly, France. yves.bigot@tours.inra.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GenomeGenomicsTandem Repeat SequencesAnimalsChickensChromosome MappingComputational BiologyCpG IslandsData MiningDNA Transposable ElementsMicrosatellite RepeatsMolecular Sequence AnnotationSoftwareDNA Transposable ElementsBenchmarkingBioinformaticsRepeatSatellite DNATransposable elements

Identifiers

PMID27542599
PMCPMC4992247

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.