Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32462406›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2020

Programmed genome rearrangements in ciliates.

Iwona Rzeszutek, Xyrus X Maurer-Alcalá, Mariusz Nowacki

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genome content in the non-model ciliatebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Remarkable chromosomes and karyotypes: A top 10 list.Molecular biology of the cell · 2024
    Review
  20. 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 2 countries.

Iwona RzeszutekInstitute of Biology and Biotechnology, Department of Biotechnology, University of Rzeszow, Pigonia 1, 35-310, Rzeszow, Poland. iwona.rzeszutek89@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6016-868X
Xyrus X Maurer-AlcaláInstitute of Cell Biology, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 4, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Mariusz NowackiInstitute of Cell Biology, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 4, 3012, Bern, Switzerland. mariusz.nowacki@izb.unibe.ch.
University of Bern · CHUniversity of Rzeszów · PL

Funding

University of Rzeszow This work was supported by the funding 500-3-11-110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ciliates are a highly divergent group of unicellular eukaryotes with separate somatic and germline genomes found in distinct dimorphic nuclei. This characteristic feature is tightly linked to extremely laborious developmentally regulated genome rearrangements in the development of a new somatic genome/nuclei following sex. The transformation from germline to soma genome involves massive DNA elimination mediated by non-coding RNAs, chromosome fragmentation, as well as DNA amplification. In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences in the genome reorganization processes of the model ciliates Paramecium and Tetrahymena (class Oligohymenophorea), and the distantly related Euplotes, Stylonychia, and Oxytricha (class Spirotrichea).

Indexed as

AnimalsCell NucleusCiliophoraGene RearrangementGenome, ProtozoanGerm CellsHumansCiliatesDNA eliminationGenome rearrangementNuclear dimorphismSmall non-coding RNAs

Identifiers

PMID32462406
PMCPMC7599177
OpenAlexW3030554911

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.