ArticleDevelopment genes and evolution2017
Differing roles for sur-2/MED23 in C. elegans and C. briggsae vulval development.
Article in Development genes and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulatory mechanism of cold-inducible diapause in Caenorhabditis elegans.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Molecular identification of a peroxidase gene controlling body size in the entomopathogenic nematode Steinernema hermaphroditum.Genetics · 2024Article
- Evolution of Transcriptional Repressors Impacts Caenorhabditis Vulval Development.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- From "the Worm" to "the Worms" and Back Again: The Evolutionary Developmental Biology of Nematodes.Genetics · 2018Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Normal vulval development in the nematode Caenorhabditis briggsae is identical to that in the related Caenorhabditis elegans. However, several experiments suggest that there are differences between the two species with respect to the contribution of EGF/Ras signaling. To investigate these differences genetically, we have characterized a C. briggsae mutant strain that phenocopies the effect observed when C. briggsae animals are treated with U0126, an inhibitor of the EGF pathway component MEK. We identify that the gene affected in the mutant strain is Cbr-sur-2, which encodes a MED23 mediator complex protein that acts downstream of EGF signaling in C. elegans and other organisms, such as mammals. When Cbr-sur-2 and Cel-sur-2 mutants are compared, we find that the production of additional vulval cells from P5.p and P7.p in C. elegans is dependent on proper development of P6.p, while C. briggsae does not have a similar requirement. Combined chemical and genetic interference with the EGF pathway completely eliminates vulval development in C. elegans but not in C. briggsae. Our results provide genetic evidence for the differing requirements for EGF signaling in the two species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28220250What 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.