Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27905490›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Inter-laboratory evolution of a model organism and its epistatic effects on mutagenesis screens.

Michael D Bradley, Devin Neu, Fatmagul Bahar, Roy D Welch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Michael D BradleyDepartment of Biology, Syracuse University, Syracuse NY 13244, USA.
Devin NeuDepartment of Biology, Syracuse University, Syracuse NY 13244, USA.
Fatmagul BaharDepartment of Biology, Syracuse University, Syracuse NY 13244, USA.
Roy D WelchDepartment of Biology, Syracuse University, Syracuse NY 13244, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In theory, a few naturally occurring evolutionary changes in the genome of a model organism may have little or no observable impact on its wild type phenotype, and yet still substantially impact the phenotypes of mutant strains through epistasis. To see if this is happening in a model organism, we obtained nine different laboratories' wild type Myxococcus xanthus DK1622 "sublines" and sequenced each to determine if they had evolved after their physical separation. Under a common garden experiment, each subline satisfied the phenotypic prerequisites for wild type, but many differed to a significant degree in each of the four quantitative phenotypic traits we measured, with some sublines differing by several-fold. Genome resequencing identified 29 variants between the nine sublines, and eight had at least one unique variant within an Open Reading Frame (ORF). By disrupting the ORF MXAN7041 in two different sublines, we demonstrated substantial epistasis from these naturally occurring variants. The impact of such inter-laboratory wild type evolution is important to any genotype-to-phenotype study; an organism's phenotype may be sensitive to small changes in genetic background, so that results from phenotypic screens and other related experiments might not agree with prior published results or the results from other laboratories.

Indexed as

MutagenesisEpistasis, GeneticEvolution, MolecularGenome, BacterialMyxococcus xanthusOpen Reading FramesPhenotypeSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID27905490
PMCPMC5131308

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.