Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36482890›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Comparison of detection methods and genome quality when quantifying nuclear mitochondrial insertions in vertebrate genomes.

Deborah A Triant, William R Pearson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Deborah A TriantDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
William R PearsonDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of mitochondrial genome fragments into the nuclear genome is well documented, and the transfer of these mitochondrial nuclear pseudogenes (numts) is thought to be an ongoing evolutionary process. With the increasing number of eukaryotic genomes available, genome-wide distributions of numts are often surveyed. However, inconsistencies in genome quality can reduce the accuracy of numt estimates, and methods used for identification can be complicated by the diverse sizes and ages of numts. Numts have been previously characterized in rodent genomes and it was postulated that they might be more prevalent in a group of voles with rapidly evolving karyotypes. Here, we examine 37 rodent genomes, and an additional 26 vertebrate genomes, while also considering numt detection methods. We identify numts using DNA:DNA and protein:translated-DNA similarity searches and compare numt distributions among rodent and vertebrate taxa to assess whether some groups are more susceptible to transfer. A combination of protein sequence comparisons (protein:translated-DNA) and BLASTN genomic DNA searches detect 50% more numts than genomic DNA:DNA searches alone. In addition, higher-quality RefSeq genomes produce lower estimates of numts than GenBank genomes, suggesting that lower quality genome assemblies can overestimate numts abundance. Phylogenetic analysis shows that mitochondrial transfers are not associated with karyotypic diversity among rodents. Surprisingly, we did not find a strong correlation between numt counts and genome size. Estimates using DNA: DNA analyses can underestimate the amount of mitochondrial DNA that is transferred to the nucleus.

Indexed as

BLASTNkaryotypic diversityMicrotusNUMTrodentsscoring matrixTFASTX

Identifiers

PMID36482890
PMCPMC9723244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.