ArticleScientific reports2019
A refutation to 'A new A-P compartment boundary and organizer in holometabolous insect wings'.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Reply to 'A refutation to 'A new A-P compartment boundary and organizer in holometabolous insect wings'.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We respond to a recent report by Abbasi and Marcus who present two main findings: first they argue that there is an organiser and a compartment boundary within the posterior compartment of the butterfly wing. Second, they present evidence for a previously undiscovered lineage boundary near wing vein 5 in Drosophila, a boundary that delineates a "far posterior" compartment. Clones of cells were marked with the yellow mutation and they reported that these clones always fail to cross a line close to vein 5 on the Drosophila wing. In our hands yellow proved an unusable marker for clones in the wing blade and therefore we reexamined the matter. We marked clones of cells with multiple wing hairs or forked and found a substantial proportion of these clones cross the proposed lineage boundary near vein 5, in conflict with their findings and conclusion. As internal controls we showed that these same clones respect the other two well established compartment boundaries: the anteroposterior compartment boundary is always respected. The dorsoventral boundary is mostly respected, and is crossed only by clones that are induced early in development, consistent with many reports. We question the validity of Abbasi and Marcus' conclusions regarding the butterfly wing but present no new data.Arising from: R. Abbasi and J. M. Marcus Sci. Rep. 7, 16337 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16553-5 .
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.