Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27925618›Full record

ArticleHeredity2017

The comparative landscape of duplications in Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius cydno.

A Pinharanda, S H Martin, S L Barker, J W Davey, C D Jiggins

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Extensive genome-wide duplications in the eastern oyster (Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  5. The evolution of insect metallothioneins.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

A PinharandaDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
S H MartinDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
S L BarkerDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
J W DaveyDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
C D JigginsDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

European Research Council 339873Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene duplications can facilitate adaptation and may lead to interpopulation divergence, causing reproductive isolation. We used whole-genome resequencing data from 34 butterflies to detect duplications in two Heliconius species, Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene. Taking advantage of three distinctive signals of duplication in short-read sequencing data, we identified 744 duplicated loci in H. cydno and H. melpomene and evaluated the accuracy of our approach using single-molecule sequencing. We have found that duplications overlap genes significantly less than expected at random in H. melpomene, consistent with the action of background selection against duplicates in functional regions of the genome. Duplicate loci that are highly differentiated between H. melpomene and H. cydno map to four different chromosomes. Four duplications were identified with a strong signal of divergent selection, including an odorant binding protein and another in close proximity with a known wing colour pattern locus that differs between the two species.

Indexed as

Gene DuplicationGenes, InsectAnimalsButterfliesChromosome MappingGenetic LociGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesPigmentationReceptors, OdorantSelection, GeneticWings, AnimalReceptors, Odorant

Identifiers

PMID27925618
PMCPMC5176112
OpenAlexW2560506837

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.