ArticleBMC genomics2020
Comparative genomics of four strains of the edible brown alga, Cladosiphon okamuranus.
Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative genomic insights into ecological adaptations and evolutionary dynamics of Trebouxiophyceae algae.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Comparative genomics and evolutionary analyses of Sphaeropleales.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- A Genomics Resource for 12 Edible Seaweeds to Predict Seaweed-Secreted Peptides with Potential Anti-Cancer Function.Biology · 2022Article
- Nuclear DNA Content Variation in Different Life Cycle Stages of Sugar Kelp, Saccharina latissima.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- The Cell Wall Polysaccharides Biosynthesis in Seaweeds: A Molecular Perspective.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- A New Dinoflagellate Genome Illuminates a Conserved Gene Cluster Involved in Sunscreen Biosynthesis.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe brown alga, Cladosiphon okamuranus (Okinawa mozuku), is one of the most important edible seaweeds, and it is cultivated for market primarily in Okinawa, Japan. Four strains, denominated S, K, O, and C, with distinctively different morphologies, have been cultivated commercially since the early 2000s. We previously reported a draft genome of the S-strain. To facilitate studies of seaweed biology for future aquaculture, we here decoded and analyzed genomes of the other three strains (K, O, and C).
resultsHere we improved the genome of the S-strain (ver. 2, 130 Mbp, 12,999 genes), and decoded the K-strain (135 Mbp, 12,511 genes), the O-strain (140 Mbp, 12,548 genes), and the C-strain (143 Mbp, 12,182 genes). Molecular phylogenies, using mitochondrial and nuclear genes, showed that the S-strain diverged first, followed by the K-strain, and most recently the C- and O-strains. Comparisons of genome architecture among the four strains document the frequent occurrence of inversions. In addition to gene acquisitions and losses, the S-, K-, O-, and C-strains possess 457, 344, 367, and 262 gene families unique to each strain, respectively. Comprehensive Blast searches showed that most genes have no sequence similarity to any entries in the non-redundant protein sequence database, although GO annotation suggested that they likely function in relation to molecular and biological processes and cellular components.
conclusionsOur study compares the genomes of four strains of C. okamuranus and examines their phylogenetic relationships. Due to global environmental changes, including temperature increases, acidification, and pollution, brown algal aquaculture is facing critical challenges. Genomic and phylogenetic information reported by the present research provides useful tools for isolation of novel strains.
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.