Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30442098›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Mollusc genomes reveal variability in patterns of LTR-retrotransposons dynamics.

Camille Thomas-Bulle, Mathieu Piednoël, Tifenn Donnart, Jonathan Filée, Didier Jollivet, Éric Bonnivard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Comparative Genomics ofEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A high-quality, haplotype-phased genome reconstruction reveals unexpected haplotype diversity in a pearl oyster.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2022
    Article
  10. Chromosomal assembly of the flat oyster (Evolutionary applications · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Camille Thomas-BulleSorbonne Université, Univ Antilles, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Evolution Paris Seine, F-75005, Paris, France. cthomasbulle@sb-roscoff.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9042-5066
Mathieu PiednoëlSorbonne Université, Univ Antilles, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Evolution Paris Seine, F-75005, Paris, France.
Tifenn DonnartSorbonne Université, Univ Antilles, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Evolution Paris Seine, F-75005, Paris, France.
Jonathan FiléeLaboratoire Evolution, Génomes, Comportement, Ecologie; CNRS, IRD, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
Didier JollivetSorbonne Université, CNRS, UMR 7144 AD2M, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Place Georges Teissier CS90074, 29688, Roscoff, France.
Éric BonnivardSorbonne Université, Univ Antilles, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Evolution Paris Seine, F-75005, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe three superfamilies of Long Terminal Repeat (LTR) retrotransposons are a widespread kind of transposable element and a major factor in eukaryotic genome evolution. In metazoans, recent studies suggested that Copia LTR-retrotransposons display specific dynamic compared to the more abundant and diverse Gypsy elements. Indeed, Copia elements show a relative scarcity and the prevalence of only a few clades in specific hosts. Thus, BEL/Pao seems to be the second most abundant superfamily. However, the generality of these assumptions remains to be assessed. Therefore, we carried out the first large-scale comparative genomic analysis of LTR-retrotransposons in molluscs. The aim of this study was to analyse the diversity, copy numbers, genomic proportions and distribution of LTR-retrotransposons in a large host phylum.

resultsWe compare nine genomes of molluscs and further added LTR-retrotransposons sequences detected in databases for 47 additional species. We identified 1709 families, which enabled us to define 31 clades. We show that clade richness was highly dependent on the considered superfamily. We found only three Copia clades, including GalEa and Hydra which appear to be widely distributed and highly dominant as they account for 96% of the characterised Copia elements. Among the seven BEL/Pao clades identified, Sparrow and Surcouf are characterised for the first time. We find no BEL or Pao elements, but the rare clades Dan and Flow are present in molluscs. Finally, we characterised 21 Gypsy clades, only five of which had been previously described, the C-clade being the most abundant one. Even if they are found in the same number of host species, Copia elements are clearly less abundant than BEL/Pao elements in copy number or genomic proportions, while Gypsy elements are always the most abundant ones whatever the parameter considered.

conclusionsOur analysis confirms the contrasting dynamics of Copia and Gypsy elements in metazoans and indicates that BEL/Pao represents the second most abundant superfamily, probably reflecting an intermediate dynamic. Altogether, the data obtained in several taxa highly suggest that these patterns can be generalised for most metazoans. Finally, we highlight the importance of using database information in complement of genome analyses when analyzing transposable element diversity.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAnimalsEvolution, MolecularGenomeGenomicsMolluscaPhylogenyRetroelementsSpecies SpecificityTerminal Repeat SequencesRetroelementsBEL/PaoComparative genomicCopiaGypsyLTR- retrotransposonsMolluscs

Identifiers

PMID30442098
PMCPMC6238403

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.