ReviewCurrent genomics2018
Introgression of the Kinetoplast DNA: An Unusual Evolutionary Journey in
Review in Current genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relevance of the Predominant Clonal Evolution (PCE) Model for the Molecular Epidemiology and Subspecific Taxonomy ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Maxicircle architecture and evolutionary insights into Trypanosoma cruzi complex.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Guide RNA Repertoires in the Main Lineages ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Evidence of hybridization, mitochondrial introgression and biparental inheritance of the kDNA minicircles in Trypanosoma cruzi I.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Elucidating diversity in the class composition of the minicircle hypervariable region of Trypanosoma cruzi: New perspectives on typing and kDNA inheritance.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
- Trypanosoma cruzi transmission in the wild and its most important reservoir hosts in Brazil.Parasites & vectors · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPhylogenetic relationships between different lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi, the agent of Chagas disease, have been controversial for several years. However, recent phylogenetic and phylogenomic analyses clarified the nuclear relationships among such lineages. However, incongruence between nuclear and kinetoplast DNA phylogenies has emerged as a new challenge. This incongruence implies several events of mitochondrial introgression at evolutionary level. However, the mechanism that gave origin to introgressed lineages is unknown. Here, I will review and discuss how maxicircles of the kinetoplast were horizontally and vertically transferred between different lineages of T. cruzi.
conclusionFinally, I will discuss what we know - and what we don't - about the kDNA transference and inheritance in the context of sexual reproduction in this parasite.
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.