ArticleScientific reports2016
Inter-laboratory evolution of a model organism and its epistatic effects on mutagenesis screens.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic sequence and structural variations accumulating between laboratory lineages of wild typebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Intra-strain genetic heterogeneity in Toxoplasma gondii ME49: Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing reveals copy number variation in the ROP8-ROP2A locus.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- An ambruticin-sensing complex modulates Myxococcus xanthus development and mediates myxobacterial interspecies communication.Nature communications · 2020Article
- A Bayesian non-parametric mixed-effects model of microbial growth curves.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Three Substrains of the Cyanobacterium Anabaena sp. Strain PCC 7120 Display Divergence in Genomic Sequences andJournal of bacteriology · 2018Article
- LuxS-dependent AI-2 production is not involved in global regulation of natural product biosynthesis inPeerJ · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.