ArticleResults and problems in cell differentiation2020
Evolution from Free-Living Bacteria to Endosymbionts of Insects: Genomic Changes and the Importance of the Chaperonin GroEL.
Article in Results and problems in cell differentiation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Evolution and ontogeny of bacteriocytes in insects.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major insect lineages have independently acquired bacterial species, mainly from Gamma-proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes class, which could be nutritional mutualistic factories, facultative mutualists that protect against biotic and abiotic stresses, or reproductive manipulators (which alter the fertility of the host species in its benefit). Some of them are enclosed in bacteriocytes to assure their maternal transmission over generations. All of them show an increased level of genetic drift due to the small population size and the continuous population bottlenecking at each generation, processes that have shaped their genome, proteome, and morphology. Depending on the nature of the relationship, the degree of genome plasticity varies, i.e., obligate nutritional mutualistic symbionts have extremely small genomes lacking mobile elements, bacteriophages, or recombination machinery. Under these conditions, endosymbionts face high mutational pressures that may drive to extinction or symbiont replacement. How do then they survive for such long evolutionary time, and why do they show a genome stasis? In this chapter, after a brief introduction to the problem, we will focus on the genome changes suffered by these endosymbionts, and on the mutational robustness mechanisms, including the moonlighting chaperone GroEL that could explain their long prevalence from an evolutionary perspective by comparing them with free-living bacteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33263869What 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.