Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30171778›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2018

Large-effect loci affect survival in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) infected with a transmissible cancer.

Mark J Margres, Menna E Jones, Brendan Epstein, Douglas H Kerlin, Sebastien Comte, Samantha Fox, Alexandra K Fraik, Sarah A Hendricks, Stewart Huxtable, Shelly Lachish and 10 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Intergenomic signatures of coevolution between Tasmanian devils and an infectious cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Contemporary and historical selection in Tasmanian devils (Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Darwin, the devil, and the management of transmissible cancers.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

20 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Mark J MargresSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-6153-6701
Menna E JonesSchool of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Brendan EpsteinSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Douglas H KerlinSchool of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Sebastien ComteSchool of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Samantha FoxSave the Tasmanian Devil Program, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Alexandra K FraikSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-9285-1173
Sarah A HendricksDepartment of Biological Sciences, Institute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Stewart HuxtableSave the Tasmanian Devil Program, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Shelly LachishDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Billie LazenbySave the Tasmanian Devil Program, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Sean M O'RourkeDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, California.
Amanda R StahlkeDepartment of Biological Sciences, Institute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Cody G WienchDepartment of Biological Sciences, Institute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Rodrigo HamedeSchool of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Barbara SchönfeldSchool of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Hamish McCallumSchool of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.
Michael R MillerDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, California.
Paul A HohenloheDepartment of Biological Sciences, Institute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Andrew StorferSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
University of Idaho · USUniversity of Tasmania · AUWashington State University · USDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania · AUGriffith University · AUUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Genomics Resources Core (GRC)P30GM103324 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI FORNEY, LARRY J · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
Evolution of cancer transmissionR01GM126563 · NIGMS · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI STORFER, ANDREW T · 2017 to 2020
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM103324NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM126563
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying the genetic architecture of complex phenotypes is a central goal of modern biology, particularly for disease-related traits. Genome-wide association methods are a classical approach for identifying the genomic basis of variation in disease phenotypes, but such analyses are particularly challenging in natural populations due to sample size difficulties. Extensive mark-recapture data, strong linkage disequilibrium and a lethal transmissible cancer make the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) an ideal model for such an association study. We used a RAD-capture approach to genotype 624 devils at ~16,000 loci and then used association analyses to assess the heritability of three cancer-related phenotypes: infection case-control (where cases were infected devils and controls were devils that were never infected), age of first infection and survival following infection. The SNP array explained much of the phenotypic variance for female survival (>80%) and female case-control (>61%). We found that a few large-effect SNPs explained much of the variance for female survival (~5 SNPs explained >61% of the total variance), whereas more SNPs (~56) of smaller effect explained less of the variance for female case-control (~23% of the total variance). By contrast, these same SNPs did not account for a significant proportion of phenotypic variance in males, suggesting that the genetic bases of these traits and/or selection differ across sexes. Loci involved with cell adhesion and cell-cycle regulation underlay trait variation, suggesting that the devil immune system is rapidly evolving to recognize and potentially suppress cancer growth through these pathways. Overall, our study provided necessary data for genomics-based conservation and management in Tasmanian devils.

Indexed as

AnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesDisease ResistanceEndangered SpeciesFemaleGenetic Association StudiesGenomicsMaleMarsupialiaNeoplasmsPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSex FactorsSurvival RateTasmaniaadaptationcancereffect sizegenotype-phenotypeGWAS

Identifiers

PMID30171778
PMCPMC6759049
OpenAlexW2888922956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.