ArticleScientific reports2021
Large-scale comparative analysis of cytogenetic markers across Lepidoptera.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repeat-associated heterochromatin expansion in Acyclania tenebrosa, a noctuid with one of the largest lepidopteran genomes.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Karyological analysis ofZooKeys · 2025Article
- Review
- The Impact of Chromosomal Rearrangements in Speciation: From Micro- to Macroevolution.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2023Review
- The Role of Repetitive Sequences in Repatterning of Major Ribosomal DNA Clusters in Lepidoptera.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- The genome sequence of a caddisfly,Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Article
- Insights into the Karyotype Evolution of Charinidae, the Early-Diverging Clade of Whip Spiders (Arachnida: Amblypygi).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) allows identification of particular chromosomes and their rearrangements. Using FISH with signal enhancement via antibody amplification and enzymatically catalysed reporter deposition, we evaluated applicability of universal cytogenetic markers, namely 18S and 5S rDNA genes, U1 and U2 snRNA genes, and histone H3 genes, in the study of the karyotype evolution in moths and butterflies. Major rDNA underwent rather erratic evolution, which does not always reflect chromosomal changes. In contrast, the hybridization pattern of histone H3 genes was well conserved, reflecting the stable organisation of lepidopteran genomes. Unlike 5S rDNA and U1 and U2 snRNA genes which we failed to detect, except for 5S rDNA in a few representatives of early diverging lepidopteran lineages. To explain the negative FISH results, we used quantitative PCR and Southern hybridization to estimate the copy number and organization of the studied genes in selected species. The results suggested that their detection was hampered by long spacers between the genes and/or their scattered distribution. Our results question homology of 5S rDNA and U1 and U2 snRNA loci in comparative studies. We recommend the use of histone H3 in studies of karyotype evolution.
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.