Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31065002›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Reply to 'A refutation to 'A new A-P compartment boundary and organizer in holometabolous insect wings'.

Roohollah Abbasi, Jeffrey M Marcus

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roohollah AbbasiDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3073-190X
Jeffrey M MarcusDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. marcus@cc.umanitoba.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6605-3437
University of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here we reply to the "Refutation" of Lawrence, Casal, de Cellis, and Morata, who critique our paper presenting evidence for an organizer and compartment boundary subdividing the widely recognized posterior wing compartment of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) and Drosophila, that we called the F-P boundary. Lawrence et al. present no data from the Lepidoptera and while the data that they present from Drosophila melanogaster mitotic clones are intriguing and may be informative with respect to the timing of the activity of the A-P and F-P organizers, considerable ambiguity remains regarding how their data should be interpreted with respect to the proposed wing compartment boundaries. Thus, contrary to their claims, Lawrence et al. have failed to falsify the F-P boundary hypothesis. Additional studies employing mitotic clones labeled with easily detectable markers that do not affect cytoskeletal organization or rates of cell division such as GFP and RFP clones produced by G-Trace or Twin Spot Generator (TSG) may further clarify the number of compartment boundaries in Drosophila wings. At the same time, because Drosophila wings are diminutive and highly modified compared to other insects, we also urge great caution in making generalizations about insect wing development based exclusively on studies in Drosophila.Replying to: Lawrence, P.A., Casal, J., de Celis, J., Morata, G. A refutation to 'A new A-P compartment boundary and organizer in holometabolous insect wings'. Sci. Rep. 9 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42668-y .

Indexed as

ButterfliesDrosophila ProteinsAnimalsDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterWings, AnimalDrosophila Proteins

Identifiers

PMID31065002
PMCPMC6504879
OpenAlexW2944149197

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.