Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9611206›Full record

ArticleGenetics1998

Rate variation of DNA sequence evolution in the Drosophila lineages.

T S Takano

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

T S TakanoDepartment of Population Genetics, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka-ken 411-8540, Japan. totakano@lab.nig.ac.jp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rate constancy of DNA sequence evolution was examined for three species of Drosophila, using two samples: the published sequences of eight genes from regions of the normal recombination rates and new data of the four AS-C (ac, sc, l'sc and ase) and ci genes. The AS-C and ci genes were chosen because these genes are located in the regions of very reduced recombination in Drosophila melanogaster and their locations remain unchanged throughout the entire lineages involved, yielding less effect of ancestral polymorphism in the study of rate constancy. The synonymous substitution pattern of the three lineages was found to be erratic in both samples. The dispersion index for replacement substitution was relatively high for the per, G6pd and ac genes. A significant heterogeneity was found in the number of synonymous substitutions in the three lineages between the two samples of genes with different recombination rates. This is partly due to a lack of the lineage effect in the D. melanogaster and Drosophila simulans lineages in the AS-C and ci genes in contrast to Akashi's observation of genes in regions of normal recombination. The higher codon bias in Drosophila yakuba as compared with D. melanogaster and D. simulans was observed in the four AS-C genes, which suggests change(s) in action of natural selection involved in codon usage on these genes. Fluctuating selection intensity may also be responsible for the observed locus-lineage interaction effects in synonymous substitution.

Indexed as

Drosophila ProteinsEvolution, MolecularGenes, InsectAnimalsBase SequenceBasic Helix-Loop-Helix ProteinsDNA-Binding ProteinsDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterMolecular Sequence DataRecombination, GeneticSequence Analysis, DNATranscription FactorsZinc Fingersac protein, DrosophilaBasic Helix-Loop-Helix Proteinsci protein, DrosophilaDNA-Binding ProteinsDrosophila Proteinssc protein, DrosophilaTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID9611206
PMCPMC1460182

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.