Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 940

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Genome Sequence of Caenorhabditis briggsae: A Platform for Comparative Genomics

Open access
Stein, Lincoln D, Bao, Zhirong, Blasiar, Darin, Blumenthal, Thomas, Brent, Michael R, Chen, Nansheng, Chinwalla, Asif, Clarke, Laura, Clee, Chris, Coghlan, Avril, Coulson, Alan, D'Eustachio, Peter, Fitch, David H. A, Fulton, Lucinda A, Fulton, Robert E, Griffiths-Jones, Sam, Harris, Todd W, Hillier, LaDeana W, Kamath, Ravi, Kuwabara, Patricia E, Mardis, Elaine R, Marra, Marco A, Miner, Tracie L, Minx, Patrick, Mullikin, James C, Plumb, Robert W, Rogers, Jane, Schein, Jacqueline E, Sohrmann, Marc, Spieth, John, Stajich, Jason E, Wei, Chaochun, Willey, David, Wilson, Richard K, Durbin, Richard, Waterston, Robert H·2003·PLoS Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000045
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The soil nematodes Caenorhabditis briggsae and Caenorhabditis elegans diverged from a common ancestor roughly 100 million years ago and yet are almost indistinguishable by eye. They have the same chromosome number and genome sizes, and they occupy the same ecological niche. To explore the basis for this striking conservation of structure and function, we have sequenced the C. briggsae genome to a high-quality draft stage and compared it to the finished C. elegans sequence. We predict approximately 19,500 protein-coding genes in the C. briggsae genome, roughly the same as in C. elegans. Of these, 12,200 have clear C. elegans orthologs, a further 6,500 have one or more clearly detectable C. elegans homologs, and approximately 800 C. briggsae genes have no detectable matches in C. elegans. Almost all of the noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) known are shared between the two species. The two genomes exhibit extensive colinearity, and the rate of divergence appears to be higher in the chromosomal arms than in the centers. Operons, a distinctive feature of C. elegans, are highly conserved in C. briggsae, with the arrangement of genes being preserved in 96% of cases. The difference in size between the C. briggsae (estimated at approximately 104 Mbp) and C. elegans (100.3 Mbp) genomes is almost entirely due to repetitive sequence, which accounts for 22.4% of the C. briggsae genome in contrast to 16.5% of the C. elegans genome. Few, if any, repeat families are shared, suggesting that most were acquired after the two species diverged or are undergoing rapid evolution. Coclustering the C. elegans and C. briggsae proteins reveals 2,169 protein families of two or more members. Most of these are shared between the two species, but some appear to be expanding or contracting, and there seem to be as many as several hundred novel C. briggsae gene families. The C. briggsae draft sequence will greatly improve the annotation of the C. elegans genome. Based on similarity to C. briggsae, we found strong evidence for 1,300 new C. elegans genes. In addition, comparisons of the two genomes will help to understand the evolutionary forces that mold nematode genomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000045

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 940

Metadata

Authors
Stein, L. D., Bao, Z., Blasiar, D., Blumenthal, T., Brent, M. R., Chen, N., Chinwalla, A., Clarke, L., Clee, C., Coghlan, A., Coulson, A., D'Eustachio, P., Fitch, D. H. A., Fulton, L. A., Fulton, R. E., Griffiths-Jones, S., Harris, T. W., Hillier, L. W., Kamath, R., Kuwabara, P. E., Mardis, E. R., Marra, M. A., Miner, T. L., Minx, P., Mullikin, J. C., Plumb, R. W., Rogers, J., Schein, J. E., Sohrmann, M., Spieth, J., Stajich, J. E., Wei, C., Willey, D., Wilson, R. K., Durbin, R., & Waterston, R. H.
Venue
PLoS Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2003-11-17
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
e45
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.0000045
OpenAlex
W2090415636
Cited by
940
References
109
FWCI
28.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.