Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32359146›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2020

Degradation of the Repetitive Genomic Landscape in a Close Relative of Caenorhabditis elegans.

Gavin C Woodruff, Anastasia A Teterina

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Conservative evolution of genetic and genomic features inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. IntraspecificNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022
    Article
  16. Nematode chromosomes.Genetics · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Gavin C WoodruffInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Anastasia A TeterinaInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Funding

Systems genomics of complex traitsR35GM131838 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI Patrick C. Phillips · 2019 to 2026
$2.7M
Deterministic and stochastic effects of diet on demography Administrative Supplement to AG049396R01AG049396 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI PHILLIPS, PATRICK C. · 2015 to 2019
$1.8M
Functional and population genomics of small RNA regulationR01GM096008 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI CUTTER, ASHER DAMON, PHILLIPS, PATRICK C. · 2011 to 2014
$1.5M
Systems genetics of natural variation in stress response pathwaysR01GM102511 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI PHILLIPS, PATRICK C. · 2015 to 2018
$1.1M
Behavioral genomics of a newly discovered species of CaenorhabditisF32GM115209 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI WOODRUFF, GAVIN C. · 2015 to 2017
$173k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG049396NIGMS NIH HHS F32 GM115209NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM096008NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM102511NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM131838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The abundance, diversity, and genomic distribution of repetitive elements is highly variable among species. These patterns are thought to be driven in part by reproductive mode and the interaction of selection and recombination, and recombination rates typically vary by chromosomal position. In the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, repetitive elements are enriched at chromosome arms and depleted on centers, and this mirrors the chromosomal distributions of other genomic features such as recombination rate. How conserved is this genomic landscape of repeats, and what evolutionary forces maintain it? To address this, we compared the genomic organization of repetitive elements across five Caenorhabditis species with chromosome-level assemblies. As previously reported, repeat content is enriched on chromosome arms in most Caenorhabditis species, and no obvious patterns of repeat content associated with reproductive mode were observed. However, the fig-associated C. inopinata has experienced repetitive element expansion and reveals no association of global repeat density with chromosome position. Patterns of repeat superfamily specific distributions reveal this global pattern is driven largely by a few repeat superfamilies that in C. inopinata have expanded in number and have weak associations with chromosome position. Additionally, 15% of predicted protein-coding genes in C. inopinata align to transposon-related proteins. When these are excluded, C. inopinata has no enrichment of genes in chromosome centers, in contrast to its close relatives who all have such clusters. Forward evolutionary simulations reveal that chromosomal heterogeneity in recombination rate alone can generate structured repetitive genomic landscapes when insertions are weakly deleterious, whereas chromosomal heterogeneity in the fitness effects of transposon insertion can promote such landscapes across a variety of evolutionary scenarios. Thus, patterns of gene density along chromosomes likely contribute to global repetitive landscapes in this group, although other historical or genomic factors are needed to explain the idiosyncrasy of genomic organization of various transposable element taxa within C. inopinata. Taken together, these results highlight the power of comparative genomics and evolutionary simulations in testing hypotheses regarding the causes of genome organization.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionDNA Transposable ElementsGenome, HelminthAnimalsCaenorhabditisDNA Transposable ElementsCaenorhabditisgenome organizationrecombinationtransposable elements

Identifiers

PMID32359146
PMCPMC7475029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.