ArticleGenes2020
GC and Repeats Profiling along Chromosomes-The Future of Fish Compositional Cytogenomics.
Article in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Genome Survey Analysis of Female and MaleGenes · 2025Article
- Abandoning the Isochore Theory Can Help Explain Genome Compositional Organization in Fish.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Advances in Vertebrate (Cyto)Genomics Shed New Light on Fish Compositional Genome Evolution.Genes · 2023Article
- Independent Evolution of Sex Chromosomes and Male Pregnancy-Related Genes in Two Seahorse Species.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- On the Base Composition of Transposable Elements.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Why Do Some Vertebrates Have Microchromosomes?Cells · 2021Review
- Fish Cytogenetics: Present and Future.Genes · 2021Article
- Quantitative Approach to Fish Cytogenetics in the Context of Vertebrate Genome Evolution.Genes · 2021Article
- Present and Future Salmonid Cytogenetics.Genes · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of fish cytogenetics has been impeded by the inability to produce G-bands that could assign chromosomes to their homologous pairs. Thus, the majority of karyotypes published have been estimated based on morphological similarities of chromosomes. The reason why chromosome G-banding does not work in fish remains elusive. However, the recent increase in the number of fish genomes assembled to the chromosome level provides a way to analyse this issue. We have developed a Python tool to visualize and quantify GC percentage (GC%) of both repeats and unique DNA along chromosomes using a non-overlapping sliding window approach. Our tool profiles GC% and simultaneously plots the proportion of repeats (rep%) in a color scale (or vice versa). Hence, it is possible to assess the contribution of repeats to the total GC%. The main differences are the GC% of repeats homogenizing the overall GC% along fish chromosomes and a greater range of GC% scattered along fish chromosomes. This may explain the inability to produce G-banding in fish. We also show an occasional banding pattern along the chromosomes in some fish that probably cannot be detected with traditional qualitative cytogenetic methods.
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.