Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32231878›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Mitochondrial genomes of

Andrew D Sweet, Kevin P Johnson, Stephen L Cameron

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Positive and relaxed selection on mitochondrial DNA in parasitic versus predatory mites.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Novel Mitochondrial Genome Fragmentation Pattern in the Buffalo LouseInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Comparative analyses of the fragmented mitochondrial genomes of wild pig louseInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew D SweetDepartment of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States of America.
Kevin P JohnsonIllinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, United States of America.
Stephen L CameronDepartment of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States of America.
Purdue University West Lafayette · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most animals have a conserved mitochondrial genome structure composed of a single chromosome. However, some organisms have their mitochondrial genes separated on several smaller circular or linear chromosomes. Highly fragmented circular chromosomes ("minicircles") are especially prevalent in parasitic lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera), with 16 species known to have between nine and 20 mitochondrial minicircles per genome. All of these species belong to the same clade (mammalian lice), suggesting a single origin of drastic fragmentation. Nevertheless, other work indicates a lesser degree of fragmentation (2-3 chromosomes/genome) is present in some avian feather lice (Ischnocera: Philopteridae). In this study, we tested for minicircles in four species of the feather louse genus

Indexed as

BioinformaticsConvergent evolutionGenome assemblyPhthiraptera

Identifiers

PMID32231878
PMCPMC7098387
OpenAlexW3012733568

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.