Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The L:M cone ratio in males of African descent with normal color vision

McMahon, Carrie, Carroll, Joseph, Awua, Stella, Neitz, Jay, Neitz, Maureen·2008·Journal of Vision
DOI 10.1167/8.2.5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Among Caucasian males with normal color vision, long-wavelength-sensitive (L) cones outnumber middle-wavelength-sensitive (M) cones by nearly three to one, on average, and the L and the M cone opsin genes are arrayed on the X-chromosome with the L opsin gene being closest to an upstream enhancer element termed the locus control region (LCR). Interaction between an opsin gene promoter and the LCR is required to mediate normal opsin gene expression, and the relative proximity of the L opsin gene promoter (4,000 base pairs for L compared to 40,000 base pairs for the M opsin gene promoter) has been proposed to endow the L gene with the advantage in competing for interaction with the LCR, thereby accounting for the nearly 3:1 ratio of L:M cones. This proximal advantage hypothesis predicts that the L:M cone ratio will be similar among populations that share the same X-chromosome opsin gene array organization. Here, we tested this hypothesis by examining a sample of males of African descent and found them to have a significantly different average L:M ratio compared to Caucasian males, even though their X-chromosome opsin gene arrays were indistinguishable from arrays in males of Caucasian descent. How these observations might be reconciled is discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/8.2.5

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 21

Metadata

Authors
McMahon, C., Carroll, J., Awua, S., Neitz, J., & Neitz, M.
Venue
Journal of Vision
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Published
2008-02-01
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
5
ISSN
1534-7362
DOI
10.1167/8.2.5
Cited by
21
References
27
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.