Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28673235›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2017

Comparative analysis of lincRNA in insect species.

Alberto Lopez-Ezquerra, Mark C Harrison, Erich Bornberg-Bauer

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  13. Epigenetic Molecular Mechanisms in Insects.Neotropical entomology · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Red flour beetle (Veterinary world · 2018
    Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alberto Lopez-EzquerraInstitute of Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse,1, Münster, Münster, Germany.
Mark C HarrisonInstitute of Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse,1, Münster, Münster, Germany.
Erich Bornberg-BauerInstitute of Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Münster, Hüfferstrasse,1, Münster, Münster, Germany. ebb@uni-muenster.de.
University of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ever increasing availability of genomes makes it possible to investigate and compare not only the genomic complements of genes and proteins, but also of RNAs. One class of RNAs, the long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and, in particular, their subclass of long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs) have recently gained much attention because of their roles in regulation of important biological processes such as immune response or cell differentiation and as possible evolutionary precursors for protein coding genes. lincRNAs seem to be poorly conserved at the sequence level but at least some lincRNAs have conserved structural elements and syntenic genomic positions. Previous studies showed that transposable elements are a main contribution to the evolution of lincRNAs in mammals. In contrast, plant lincRNA emergence and evolution has been linked with local duplication events. However, little is known about their evolutionary dynamics in general and in insect genomes in particular.

resultsHere we compared lincRNAs between seven insect genomes and investigated possible evolutionary changes and functional roles. We find very low sequence conservation between different species and that similarities within a species are mostly due to their association with transposable elements (TE) and simple repeats. Furthermore, we find that TEs are less frequent in lincRNA exons than in their introns, indicating that TEs may have been removed by selection. When we analysed the predicted thermodynamic stabilities of lincRNAs we found that they are more stable than their randomized controls which might indicate some selection pressure to maintain certain structural elements. We list several of the most stable lincRNAs which could serve as prime candidates for future functional studies. We also discuss the possibility of de novo protein coding genes emerging from lincRNAs. This is because lincRNAs with high GC content and potentially with longer open reading frames (ORF) are candidate loci where de novo gene emergence might occur.

conclusionThe processes responsible for the emergence and diversification of lincRNAs in insects remain unclear. Both duplication and transposable elements may be important for the creation of new lincRNAs in insects.

Indexed as

Genome, InsectAnimalsDNA Transposable ElementsExonsInsectaIntronsOpen Reading FramesRNA, Long NoncodingDNA Transposable ElementsRNA, Long NoncodingEvolutionlincRNARNA secondary structureTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID28673235
PMCPMC5494802
OpenAlexW2731234146

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.