Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29065907›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2017

Regulatory remodeling in the allo-tetraploid frog Xenopus laevis.

Dei M Elurbe, Sarita S Paranjpe, Georgios Georgiou, Ila van Kruijsbergen, Ozren Bogdanovic, Romain Gibeaux, Rebecca Heald, Ryan Lister, Martijn A Huynen, Simon J van Heeringen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Temporal Transcriptomic Profiling of the DevelopingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Dei M ElurbeRadboud University Medical Center, Center for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sarita S ParanjpeRadboud University, Faculty of Science, Department of Molecular Developmental Biology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Georgios GeorgiouRadboud University, Faculty of Science, Department of Molecular Developmental Biology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ila van KruijsbergenRadboud University, Faculty of Science, Department of Molecular Developmental Biology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ozren BogdanovicGenomics and Epigenetics Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.
Romain GibeauxDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Rebecca HealdDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Ryan ListerHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research and ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Martijn A HuynenRadboud University Medical Center, Center for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. huynen@cmbi.ru.nl.
Simon J van HeeringenRadboud University, Faculty of Science, Department of Molecular Developmental Biology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. s.vanheeringen@science.ru.nl.
Gert Jan C VeenstraRadboud University, Faculty of Science, Department of Molecular Developmental Biology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. g.veenstra@science.ru.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRadboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences · NLUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of Western Australia · AUUniversity Medical Center · US

Funding

Mechanisms of mitosis and size control in XenopusR35GM118183 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI HEALD, REBECCA W · 2016 to 2025
$8.2M
Epigenome maps of regulatory activity in Xenopus tropicalis embryosR01HD069344 · NICHD · STICHTING RADBOUD UNIVERSITEIT · PI VEENSTRA, GERT JAN C. · 2011 to 2015
$1.4M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD069344NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM118183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome duplication has played a pivotal role in the evolution of many eukaryotic lineages, including the vertebrates. A relatively recent vertebrate genome duplication is that in Xenopus laevis, which resulted from the hybridization of two closely related species about 17 million years ago. However, little is known about the consequences of this duplication at the level of the genome, the epigenome, and gene expression.

resultsThe X. laevis genome consists of two subgenomes, referred to as L (long chromosomes) and S (short chromosomes), that originated from distinct diploid progenitors. Of the parental subgenomes, S chromosomes have degraded faster than L chromosomes from the point of genome duplication until the present day. Deletions appear to have the largest effect on pseudogene formation and loss of regulatory regions. Deleted regions are enriched for long DNA repeats and the flanking regions have high alignment scores, suggesting that non-allelic homologous recombination has played a significant role in the loss of DNA. To assess innovations in the X. laevis subgenomes we examined p300-bound enhancer peaks that are unique to one subgenome and absent from X. tropicalis. A large majority of new enhancers comprise transposable elements. Finally, to dissect early and late events following interspecific hybridization, we examined the epigenome and the enhancer landscape in X. tropicalis × X. laevis hybrid embryos. Strikingly, young X. tropicalis DNA transposons are derepressed and recruit p300 in hybrid embryos.

conclusionsThe results show that erosion of X. laevis genes and functional regulatory elements is associated with repeats and non-allelic homologous recombination and furthermore that young repeats have also contributed to the p300-bound regulatory landscape following hybridization and whole-genome duplication.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticGenomeTetraploidyAnimalsChromatinChromosome DeletionDNA Transposable ElementsEnhancer Elements, GeneticGene ExpressionHybridization, GeneticPseudogenesXenopusXenopus laevisChromatinDNA Transposable ElementsEnhancersEpigenomicsGenome evolutionInterspecific hybridizationPseudogenesWhole genome duplication

Identifiers

PMID29065907
PMCPMC5655803
OpenAlexW2950344184

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.