ArticleGenetics1998
Molecular evolution of two lineages of L1 (LINE-1) retrotransposons in the california mouse, Peromyscus californicus.
Article in Genetics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flying Around in the Genome: Characterization of LINE-1 in Chiroptera.Special publications (Texas Tech University. Museum) · 2019Article
- Contrasted patterns of evolution of the LINE-1 retrotransposon in perissodactyls: the history of a LINE-1 extinction.Mobile DNA · 2018Article
- LINEs between Species: Evolutionary Dynamics of LINE-1 Retrotransposons across the Eukaryotic Tree of Life.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- Reviving the dead: history and reactivation of an extinct l1.PLoS genetics · 2014Article
- Revisiting the evolution of mouse LINE-1 in the genomic era.Mobile DNA · 2013Article
- Article
- Loss of LINE-1 activity in the megabats.Genetics · 2008Article
- The Evolution of SINEs and LINEs in the genus Chironomus (Diptera).Journal of molecular evolution · 2004Article
- The end of the LINE?: lack of recent L1 activity in a group of South American rodents.Genetics · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The large number of L1 [long interspersed elements (LINE)-1] sequences found in the genome is due to the insertion of copies of the retrotransposon over evolutionary time. The majority of copies appear to be replicates of a few active, or "master" templates. A continual replacement of master templates over time gives rise to lineages distinguishable by their own unique set of shared-sequence variants. A previous analysis of L1 sequences in deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. leucopus, revealed two active L1 lineages, marked by different rates of evolution, whose most recent common ancestor predates the expansion of the Peromyscus species. Here we exploit lineage-specific, shared-sequence variants to reveal a paucity of Lineage 2 sequences in at least one species, P. californicus. The dearth of Lineage 2 copies in P. californicus suggests that Lineage 2 may have been unproductive until after the most recent common ancestor of P. californicus and P. maniculatus. We also show that Lineage 1 appears to have a higher rate of evolution in P. maniculatus relative to either P. californicus or P. leucopus. As a phylogenetic tool, L1 lineage-specific variants support a close affinity between P. californicus and P. eremicus relative to the other species examined.
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.