Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11864370›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2002

Selection in the evolution of gene duplications.

Fyodor A Kondrashov, Igor B Rogozin, Yuri I Wolf, Eugene V Koonin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 405 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
405citing 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

405 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Paralogs of thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Influence ofGenome research · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Influence ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article

345 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Fyodor A KondrashovNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA. fkondras@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Igor B Rogozin
Yuri I Wolf
Eugene V Koonin

Funding

Comparative Analysis Of Completely Sequenced GenomesZIALM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 2009 to 2025
$43.1M
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLETELY SEQUENCED GENOMESZ01LM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 1996 to 2008
$1.2M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGene duplications have a major role in the evolution of new biological functions. Theoretical studies often assume that a duplication per se is selectively neutral and that, following a duplication, one of the gene copies is freed from purifying (stabilizing) selection, which creates the potential for evolution of a new function.

resultsIn search of systematic evidence of accelerated evolution after duplication, we used data from 26 bacterial, six archaeal, and seven eukaryotic genomes to compare the mode and strength of selection acting on recently duplicated genes (paralogs) and on similarly diverged, unduplicated orthologous genes in different species. We find that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions (Kn/Ks) in most paralogous pairs is <<1 and that paralogs typically evolve at similar rates, without significant asymmetry, indicating that both paralogs produced by a duplication are subject to purifying selection. This selection is, however, substantially weaker than the purifying selection affecting unduplicated orthologs that have diverged to the same extent as the analyzed paralogs. Most of the recently duplicated genes appear to be involved in various forms of environmental response; in particular, many of them encode membrane and secreted proteins.

conclusionsThe results of this analysis indicate that recently duplicated paralogs evolve faster than orthologs with the same level of divergence and similar functions, but apparently do not experience a phase of neutral evolution. We hypothesize that gene duplications that persist in an evolving lineage are beneficial from the time of their origin, due primarily to a protein dosage effect in response to variable environmental conditions; duplications are likely to give rise to new functions at a later phase of their evolution once a higher level of divergence is reached.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene DuplicationSelection, GeneticAnimalsHumansMiceRats

Identifiers

PMID11864370
PMCPMC65685

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.