Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11160906›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2001

Digging for dead genes: an analysis of the characteristics of the pseudogene population in the Caenorhabditis elegans genome.

P M Harrison, N Echols, M B Gerstein

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
29.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pseudogenes and Their Genome-Wide Prediction in Plants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparative analysis of pseudogenes across three phyla.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The GENCODE pseudogene resource.Genome biology · 2012
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Two complementary recessive genes in duplicated segments control etiolation in rice.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2011
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparative genomics and molecular dynamics of DNA repeats in eukaryotes.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2008
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gene decay in archaea.Archaea (Vancouver, B.C.) · 2007
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P M HarrisonDepartment of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, 260 Whitney Avenue, PO Box 208114, New Haven, CT 06511-8114, USA.
N Echols
M B Gerstein
Yale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pseudogenes are non-functioning copies of genes in genomic DNA, which may either result from reverse transcription from an mRNA transcript (processed pseudogenes) or from gene duplication and subsequent disablement (non-processed pseudogenes). As pseudogenes are apparently 'dead', they usually have a variety of obvious disablements (e.g., insertions, deletions, frameshifts and truncations) relative to their functioning homologs. We have derived an initial estimate of the size, distribution and characteristics of the pseudogene population in the Caenorhabditis elegans genome, performing a survey in 'molecular archaeology'. Corresponding to the 18 576 annotated proteins in the worm (i.e., in Wormpep18), we have found an estimated total of 2168 pseudogenes, about one for every eight genes. Few of these appear to be processed. Details of our pseudogene assignments are available from http://bioinfo.mbb.yale.edu/genome/worm/pseudogene. The population of pseudogenes differs significantly from that of genes in a number of respects: (i) pseudogenes are distributed unevenly across the genome relative to genes, with a disproportionate number on chromosome IV; (ii) the density of pseudogenes is higher on the arms of the chromosomes; (iii) the amino acid composition of pseudogenes is midway between that of genes and (translations of) random intergenic DNA, with enrichment of Phe, Ile, Leu and Lys, and depletion of Asp, Ala, Glu and Gly relative to the worm proteome; and (iv) the most common protein folds and families differ somewhat between genes and pseudogenes-whereas the most common fold found in the worm proteome is the immunoglobulin fold and the most common 'pseudofold' is the C-type lectin. In addition, the size of a gene family bears little overall relationship to the size of its corresponding pseudogene complement, indicating a highly dynamic genome. There are in fact a number of families associated with large populations of pseudogenes. For example, one family of seven-transmembrane receptors (represented by gene B0334.7) has one pseudogene for every four genes, and another uncharacterized family (represented by gene B0403.1) is approximately two-thirds pseudogenic. Furthermore, over a hundred apparent pseudogenic fragments do not have any obvious homologs in the worm.

Indexed as

GenomeAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansChromosomesDNA, HelminthGenes, HelminthMolecular Sequence DataPseudogenesDNA, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID11160906
PMCPMC30377
OpenAlexW2041245661

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.