Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30988700›Full record

ArticleMobile DNA2019

Evolution of

Mathilde Dupeyron, Kumar S Singh, Chris Bass, Alexander Hayward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mobile DNA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Divergent Evolutionary Profile ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Independent evolution of transposase and TIRs facilitated by recombination betweenProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. The first discovery of Tc1 transposons in yeast.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Cloning of MaizeInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Mathilde DupeyronCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8909-524X
Kumar S SinghCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE UK.
Chris BassCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE UK.
Alexander HaywardCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background

resultsWe perform comprehensive bioinformatic and phylogenetic analyses to address currently available MULE diversity and reconstruct evolution for the group. For this, we mine MULEs from online databases, and combine search results with available transposase sequences retrieved from previously published studies. Our analyses uncover two entirely new MULE clades that contain elements almost entirely restricted to arthropod hosts, considerably expanding the set of MULEs known from this group, suggesting that many additional MULEs may await discovery from further arthropod genomes. In several cases, close relationships occur between MULEs recovered from distantly related host organisms, suggesting that horizontal transfer events may have played an important role in the evolution of the group. However, it is apparent that MULEs from plants remain separate from MULEs identified from other host groups. MULE structure varies considerably across phylogeny, and TIR length is shown to vary greatly both within and between MULE groups. Our phylogeny suggests that MULE diversity is clustered in well-supported groups, typically according to host taxonomy. With reference to this, we make suggestions on how MULE diversity can be partitioned to provide a robust taxonomic framework.

conclusionsOur study represents a considerable advance in the understanding of MULE diversity, host range and evolution, and provides a taxonomic framework for the classification of further MULE elements that await discovery. Our findings also raise a number of questions relating to MULE biology, suggesting that this group will provide a rich avenue for future study.

Indexed as

Horizontal transferHorizontal transmissionMuDRMULEMULEsPhylogenetic analysisTransposon

Identifiers

PMID30988700
PMCPMC6446971

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.