ArticleDevelopment genes and evolution2020
Candidate gene screen for potential interaction partners and regulatory targets of the Hox gene labial in the spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum.
Article in Development genes and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-Genome-Wide association studies provide new insights into the genetic architecture of Varroa resistance in honeybees.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- A taxon-restricted duplicate of Iroquois3 is required for patterning the spider waist.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Widespread retention of ohnologs in key developmental gene families following whole-genome duplication in arachnopulmonates.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Hox gene labial (lab) governs the formation of the tritocerebral head segment in insects and spiders. However, the morphology that results from lab action is very different in the two groups. In insects, the tritocerebral segment (intercalary segment) is reduced and lacks appendages, whereas in spiders the corresponding segment (pedipalpal segment) is a proper segment including a pair of appendages (pedipalps). It is likely that this difference between lab action in insects and spiders is mediated by regulatory targets or interacting partners of lab. However, only a few such genes are known in insects and none in spiders. We have conducted a candidate gene screen in the spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum using as candidates Drosophila melanogaster genes known to (potentially) interact with lab or to be expressed in the intercalary segment. We have studied 75 P. tepidariorum genes (including previously published and duplicated genes). Only 3 of these (proboscipedia-A (pb-A) and two paralogs of extradenticle (exd)) showed differential expression between leg and pedipalp. The low success rate points to a weakness of the candidate gene approach when it is applied to lineage specific organs. The spider pedipalp has no counterpart in insects, and therefore relying on insect data apparently cannot identify larger numbers of factors implicated in its specification and formation. We argue that in these cases a de novo approach to gene discovery might be superior to the candidate gene approach.
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.