ArticleInsect molecular biology2022
On how to identify a seminal fluid protein: A response to Wigby et al.
Article in Insect molecular biology, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Testis-Specific Aralkylamine N-Acetyltransferase Regulates Dimorphic Sperm Function and Male Fertility in Moths.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Rapid promoter evolution of male accessory gland genes is accompanied by divergent expression in closely related Drosophila species.Genetics · 2025Article
- Gene age shapes functional and evolutionary properties of theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- An Orphan Gene Enhances Male Reproductive Success in Plutella xylostella.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Genotype-by-environment interactions influence the composition of theProceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- On the Role of Seminal Fluid Protein and Nucleic Acid Content in Paternal Epigenetic Inheritance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The choice of criteria to delimit a group or class is a subjective matter, even though the reasoning, the objectives and the criteria themselves should always be clearly stated. This paper is part of a discussion about the criteria used to identify seminal fluid proteins (SFPs) in Drosophila species. SFPs are proteins that are transferred to females during copulation together with sperm. The only way to ascertain that a protein is an SFP is to prove that it is produced in a male reproductive organ and is found in the female reproductive tract after insemination. Nevertheless, the required methodology is labour-intensive and expensive, and therefore this kind of data is unlikely to be available for many species, precluding comparative and evolutionary studies on the subject. To conduct evolutionary analyses, in a previous study, we capitalized on the accumulated knowledge we have in the model species D. melanogaster to recommend a set of criteria for identifying candidate SFPs in other Drosophila species. Those criteria, based on transcriptomic evidence and in silico predictions from sequences, would allow a good balance between sensitivity (the inclusion of true SFPs) and specificity (the exclusion of false positives). In view of the criticism raised by another group, here we defend our criteria on one hand while accepting there is room for improvement on the other. The results are updated sets of criteria and SFPs that we believe can be useful in future evolutionary studies.
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.