Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27577548›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

A new look at the LTR retrotransposon content of the chicken genome.

Andrew S Mason, Janet E Fulton, Paul M Hocking, David W Burt

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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Avian Leukosis: Will We Be Able to Get Rid of It?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Advances on genetic and genomic studies of ALV resistance.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  11. Fourth Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2022.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Time lapse: A glimpse into prehistoric genomics.European journal of medical genetics · 2020
    Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew S MasonThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. andrew.mason@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Janet E FultonHy-Line International, 1915 Sugar Grove Avenue, Dallas Grove, IA, 50063, USA.
Paul M HockingThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
David W BurtThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. dave.burt@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Roslin Institute · GBHy-Line (United States) · US

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council 1361596Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20320000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLTR retrotransposons contribute approximately 10 % of the mammalian genome, but it has been previously reported that there is a deficit of these elements in the chicken relative to both mammals and other birds. A novel LTR retrotransposon classification pipeline, LocaTR, was developed and subsequently utilised to re-examine the chicken LTR retrotransposon annotation, and determine if the proposed chicken deficit is biologically accurate or simply a technical artefact.

resultsUsing LocaTR 3.01 % of the chicken galGal4 genome assembly was annotated as LTR retrotransposon-derived elements (nearly double the previous annotation), including 1,073 that were structurally intact. Element distribution is significantly correlated with chromosome size and is non-random within each chromosome. Elements are significantly depleted within coding regions and enriched in gene sparse areas of the genome. Over 40 % of intact elements are found in clusters, unrelated by age or genera, generally in poorly recombining regions. The transcription of most LTR retrotransposons were suppressed or incomplete, but individual domain and full length retroviral transcripts were produced in some cases, although mostly with regularly interspersed stop codons in all reading frames. Furthermore, RNAseq data from 23 diverse tissues enabled greater characterisation of the co-opted endogenous retrovirus Ovex1. This gene was shown to be expressed ubiquitously but at variable levels across different tissues. LTR retrotransposon content was found to be very variable across the avian lineage and did not correlate with either genome size or phylogenetic position. However, the extent of previous, species-specific LTR retrotransposon annotation appears to be a confounding factor.

conclusionsUse of the novel LocaTR pipeline has nearly doubled the annotated LTR retrotransposon content of the chicken genome compared to previous estimates. Further analysis has described element distribution, clustering patterns and degree of expression in a variety of adult tissues, as well as in three embryonic stages. This study also enabled better characterisation of the co-opted gamma retroviral envelope gene Ovex1. Additionally, this work suggests that there is no deficit of LTR retrotransposons within the Galliformes relative to other birds, or to mammalian genomes when scaled for the three-fold difference in genome size.

Indexed as

GenomePhylogenyAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsChickensRetroelementsSequence Analysis, DNATerminal Repeat SequencesRetroelementsChickenEndogenous retrovirusERVLocaTR identification pipelineLTR retrotransposon

Identifiers

PMID27577548
PMCPMC5006616
OpenAlexW2508406681

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.