De novo transcriptome assembly and its annotation for the aposematic wood tiger moth (

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Antibiotics accelerate growth at the expense of immunity.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
   Article
2. Comparative transcriptomics of albino and warningly-coloured caterpillars.Ecology and evolution · 2021
   Article
3. A haplotype-resolved, de novo genome assembly for the wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis) through trio binning.GigaScience · 2020
   Article
4. Evaluating responses to temperature during pre-metamorphosis and carry-over effects at post-metamorphosis in the wood tiger moth (Arctia plantaginis).Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
   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

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract