ArticleChromosoma1995
Tracking heterochromatin.
Article in Chromosoma, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empirical comparison of ab initio repeat finding programs.Nucleic acids research · 2008Article
- FISH analysis of Drosophila melanogaster heterochromatin using BACs and P elements.Chromosoma · 2003Article
- Recombination rate and the distribution of transposable elements in the Drosophila melanogaster genome.Genome research · 2002Article
- Localization of single- and low-copy sequences on tomato synaptonemal complex spreads using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).Genetics · 1999Article
- Neutral and nonneutral mutations: the creative mix--evolution of complexity in gene interaction systems.Journal of molecular evolution · 1997Review
- Article
- Transcription of gypsy elements in a Y-chromosome male fertility gene of Drosophila hydei.Genetics · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Second International Workshop on Drosophila Heterochromatin, held in Honolulu from January 4-7, 1995, brought together about 70 scientists from the US, Canada, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the Netherlands. After the first of these international meetings, five years ago, Mary Lou Pardue and Wolfgang Hennig, in these columns, commented on its proceedings, and on heterochromatin in general. Although the questions that they raised cannot yet be answered exhaustively, important and sometimes surprising new observations have been made, some previously tentative answers have been firmed up, and some theoretical views underwent significant shifts. We wish to reflect here a few of the data presented at the second workshop, and express some thoughts suggested to us by these recent findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8585993What 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.