Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28631230›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2017

Sequence analysis of chromosome 1 revealed different selection patterns between Chinese wild mice and laboratory strains.

Fuyi Xu, Shixian Hu, Tianzhu Chao, Maochun Wang, Kai Li, Yuxun Zhou, Hongyan Xu, Junhua Xiao

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fuyi XuCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5952-5771
Shixian HuCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China.
Tianzhu ChaoCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China.
Maochun WangCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China.
Kai LiCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China.
Yuxun ZhouCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China.
Hongyan XuDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, 1120 15th Street, Augusta, GA, 30912, USA. HXU@augusta.edu.
Junhua XiaoCollege of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, and Biotechnology, Donghua University, 2999 North Renmin Road, Shanghai, 201620, China. xiaojunhua@dhu.edu.cn.
Donghua University · CNAugusta University · US

Funding

DHU Distinguished Young Professor Program B201308Key Project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 13140900300Key Project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 15140900500National Natural Science Foundation of China 31371257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both natural and artificial selection play a critical role in animals' adaptation to the environment. Detection of the signature of selection in genomic regions can provide insights for understanding the function of specific phenotypes. It is generally assumed that laboratory mice may experience intense artificial selection while wild mice more natural selection. However, the differences of selection signature in the mouse genome and underlying genes between wild and laboratory mice remain unclear. In this study, we used two mouse populations: chromosome 1 (Chr 1) substitution lines (C1SLs) derived from Chinese wild mice and mouse genome project (MGP) sequenced inbred strains and two selection detection statistics: Fst and Tajima's D to identify the signature of selection footprint on Chr 1. For the differentiation between the C1SLs and MGP, 110 candidate selection regions containing 47 protein coding genes were detected. A total of 149 selection regions which encompass 7.215 Mb were identified in the C1SLs by Tajima's D approach. While for the MGP, we identified nearly twice selection regions (243) compared with the C1SLs which accounted for 13.27 Mb Chr 1 sequence. Through functional annotation, we identified several biological processes with significant enrichment including seven genes in the olfactory transduction pathway. In addition, we searched the phenotypes associated with the 47 candidate selection genes identified by Fst. These genes were involved in behavior, growth or body weight, mortality or aging, and immune systems which align well with the phenotypic differences between wild and laboratory mice. Therefore, the findings would be helpful for our understanding of the phenotypic differences between wild and laboratory mice and applications for using this new mouse resource (C1SLs) for further genetics studies.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsBase SequenceChromosome MappingGenetic PhenomenaGenomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMiceMice, Inbred C57BLPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSelection, GeneticSequence Analysis, DNAChinese wild miceChromosome 1Laboratory miceSelection signature

Identifiers

PMID28631230
OpenAlexW2661452801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.