ArticleGenetics1988
The use of DNA probes for taxonomic study of dictyostelium wild isolates.
Article in Genetics, 1988. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The rate and effects of spontaneous mutation on fitness traits in the social amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2013Article
- Self- and non-self-recognition in bisexual mating of Dictyostelium discoideum.Development, growth & differentiation · 1995Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The classification of 27 wild isolates assigned to Dictyostelium discoideum on the basis of morphological criteria was reexamined using probes specific for DNA sequences cloned from the type strain NC4. These probes included ones specific for ribosomal spacer DNA regions and for a ribosomal RNA coding sequence, as well as probes for two chromosomal gene families (actin and discoidin) and for the DIRS-1 transposable element. Four isolates (AC4, WS526, WS584 and ZA3A) which had previously been shown to have unusual mating characteristics were distinctly different from other isolates. We interpret these differences as indicating that the four atypical isolates represent species other than D. discoideum. Probes for the ribosomal spacer DNA either did not hybridize to the DNA of these four isolates or had decreased levels of hybridization to EcoRI restriction fragments of different lengths to that observed with the type strain. With the discoidin probe, all isolates had DNA fragments that hybridized but AC4, WS526, WS584 and ZA3A lacked a pair of fragments that were conserved in NC4 and other isolates. With the actin probe, AC4, WS526, WS584 and ZA3A lacked numerous fragments that the other isolates shared with NC4. The DIRS-1 probes showed strong hybridization with ZA3A and weak hybridization to the other three isolates; however, the major EcoRI fragment in WS526 and WS584 was smaller than that in NC4 while ZA3A and AC4 had fragments of similar size to that in NC4.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.