Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27852011›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2017

A New Chicken Genome Assembly Provides Insight into Avian Genome Structure.

Wesley C Warren, LaDeana W Hillier, Chad Tomlinson, Patrick Minx, Milinn Kremitzki, Tina Graves, Chris Markovic, Nathan Bouk, Kim D Pruitt, Francoise Thibaud-Nissen and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 152 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
152citing 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

152 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Sex Chromosome Turnovers and Stability in Snakes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

92 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

32 authors.

Wesley C WarrenMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108 wwarren@wustl.edu hcheng@msu.edu.
LaDeana W HillierMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Chad TomlinsonMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Patrick MinxMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Milinn KremitzkiMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Tina GravesMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Chris MarkovicMcDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63108.
Nathan BoukNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894.
Kim D PruittNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894.
Francoise Thibaud-NissenNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894.
Valerie SchneiderNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20894.
Tamer A MansourUniversity of California-Davis, California 95616.
C Titus BrownUniversity of California-Davis, California 95616.
Aleksey ZiminInstitute for Physical Sciences and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.
Rachel HawkenCobb-Vantress Inc., Siloam Springs, Arkansas 72761-1030.
Mitch AbrahamsenCobb-Vantress Inc., Siloam Springs, Arkansas 72761-1030.
Alexis B PyrkoszUnited States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Avian Disease and Oncology, East Lansing, Michigan 48823.
Mireille MorissonGénétique Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Auzeville Castanet Tolosan, France.
Valerie FillonGénétique Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Auzeville Castanet Tolosan, France.
Alain VignalGénétique Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Auzeville Castanet Tolosan, France.
William ChowWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA, United Kingdom.
Kerstin HoweWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA, United Kingdom.
Janet E FultonHy-Line International, Dallas, Iowa 50063.
Marcia M MillerBeckman Research Institute, Duarte, California 91010-3000.
Peter LovellDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098.
Claudio V MelloDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098.
Morgan WirthlinDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098.
Andrew S MasonThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian EH25 9RG, United Kingdom.
Richard KuoThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian EH25 9RG, United Kingdom.
David W BurtThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian EH25 9RG, United Kingdom.
Jerry B DodgsonDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824.
Hans H ChengUnited States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Avian Disease and Oncology, East Lansing, Michigan 48823 wwarren@wustl.edu hcheng@msu.edu.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211550
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of the Gallus gallus (chicken) as a model organism and agricultural animal merits a continuation of sequence assembly improvement efforts. We present a new version of the chicken genome assembly (Gallus_gallus-5.0; GCA_000002315.3), built from combined long single molecule sequencing technology, finished BACs, and improved physical maps. In overall assembled bases, we see a gain of 183 Mb, including 16.4 Mb in placed chromosomes with a corresponding gain in the percentage of intact repeat elements characterized. Of the 1.21 Gb genome, we include three previously missing autosomes, GGA30, 31, and 33, and improve sequence contig length 10-fold over the previous Gallus_gallus-4.0. Despite the significant base representation improvements made, 138 Mb of sequence is not yet located to chromosomes. When annotated for gene content, Gallus_gallus-5.0 shows an increase of 4679 annotated genes (2768 noncoding and 1911 protein-coding) over those in Gallus_gallus-4.0. We also revisited the question of what genes are missing in the avian lineage, as assessed by the highest quality avian genome assembly to date, and found that a large fraction of the original set of missing genes are still absent in sequenced bird species. Finally, our new data support a detailed map of MHC-B, encompassing two segments: one with a highly stable gene copy number and another in which the gene copy number is highly variable. The chicken model has been a critical resource for many other fields of study, and this new reference assembly will substantially further these efforts.

Indexed as

Molecular Sequence AnnotationSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsChickensChromosomes, Artificial, BacterialComputational BiologyContig MappingGenomeGallus gallusgenome assemblyMHC

Identifiers

PMID27852011
PMCPMC5217101

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.