Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31339632›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2019

Multi-individual microsatellite identification: A multiple genome approach to microsatellite design (MiMi).

Graeme Fox, Richard F Preziosi, Rachael E Antwis, Milena Benavides-Serrato, Fraser J Combe, W Edwin Harris, Ian R Hartley, Andrew C Kitchener, Selvino R de Kort, Anne-Isola Nekaris and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Characterization of Microsatellites in theFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors.

Graeme FoxEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7980-6944
Richard F PreziosiEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Rachael E AntwisSchool of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8849-8194
Milena Benavides-SerratoEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1644-8673
Fraser J CombeEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
W Edwin HarrisEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Ian R HartleyLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Andrew C KitchenerDepartment of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Selvino R de KortEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Anne-Isola NekarisDepartment of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Jennifer K RowntreeEcology and Environment Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8249-8057

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bespoke microsatellite marker panels are increasingly affordable and tractable to researchers and conservationists. The rate of microsatellite discovery is very high within a shotgun genomic data set, but extensive laboratory testing of markers is required for confirmation of amplification and polymorphism. By incorporating shotgun next-generation sequencing data sets from multiple individuals of the same species, we have developed a new method for the optimal design of microsatellite markers. This new tool allows us to increase the rate at which suitable candidate markers are selected by 58% in direct comparisons and facilitate an estimated 16% reduction in costs associated with producing a novel microsatellite panel. Our method enables the visualisation of each microsatellite locus in a multiple sequence alignment allowing several important quality checks to be made. Polymorphic loci can be identified and prioritised. Loci containing fragment-length-altering mutations in the flanking regions, which may invalidate assumptions regarding the model of evolution underlying variation at the microsatellite, can be avoided. Priming regions containing point mutations can be detected and avoided, helping to reduce sample-site-marker specificity arising from genetic isolation, and the likelihood of null alleles occurring. We demonstrate the utility of this new approach in two species: an echinoderm and a bird. Our method makes a valuable contribution towards minimising genotyping errors and reducing costs associated with developing a novel marker panel. The Python script to perform our method of multi-individual microsatellite identification (MiMi) is freely available from GitHub (https://github.com/graemefox/mimi).

Indexed as

AllelesGenetic MarkersGenomeGenomicsGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicrosatellite RepeatsPoint MutationPolymorphism, GeneticGenetic Markerscost-effective marker developmenthigh-throughput sequencingin silico quality controlmicrosatellite designpolymorphic loci detectionshort tandem repeat (STR)

Identifiers

PMID31339632
PMCPMC6900094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.