Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33880685›Full record

ReviewGenetica2021

Neutralism versus selectionism: Chargaff's second parity rule, revisited.

Donald R Forsdyke

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genetica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Human follicular mites: Ectoparasites becoming symbionts.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donald R ForsdykeDepartment of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L3N6, Canada. forsdyke@queensu.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4844-1417
Queen's University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Of Chargaff's four "rules" on DNA base frequencies, the functional interpretation of his second parity rule (PR2) is the most contentious. Thermophile base compositions (GC%) were taken by Galtier and Lobry (1997) as favoring Sueoka's neutral PR2 hypothesis over Forsdyke's selective PR2 hypothesis, namely that mutations improving local within-species recombination efficiency had generated a genome-wide potential for the strands of duplex DNA to separate and initiate recombination through the "kissing" of the tips of stem-loops. However, following Chargaff's GC rule, base composition mainly reflects a species-specific, genome-wide, evolutionary pressure. GC% could not have consistently followed the dictates of temperature, since it plays fundamental roles in both sustaining species integrity and, through primarily neutral genome-wide mutation, fostering speciation. Evidence for a local within-species recombination-initiating role of base order was obtained with a novel technology that masked the contribution of base composition to nucleic acid folding energy. Forsdyke's results were consistent with his PR2 hypothesis, appeared to resolve some root problems in biology and provided a theoretical underpinning for alignment-free taxonomic analyses using relative oligonucleotide frequencies (k-mer analysis). Moreover, consistent with Chargaff's cluster rule, discovery of the thermoadaptive role of the "purine-loading" of open reading frames made less tenable the Galtier-Lobry anti-selectionist arguments.

Indexed as

Base PairingEvolution, MolecularSelection, GeneticBacteriaBase CompositionThermotoleranceBase compositionPurine-loadingSpeciationStem-loopsTaxonomyThermoadaptation

Identifiers

PMID33880685
PMCPMC8057000
OpenAlexW3152978319

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.