Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12836686›Full record

ArticleJournal of structural and functional genomics2003

Are all fishes ancient polyploids?

Yves Van de Peer, John S Taylor, Axel Meyer

Abstract read
PubMed
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of structural and functional genomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
16.7field-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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Fungal evolution: cellular, genomic and metabolic complexity.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020
    Article
  5. Grand Challenges in Comparative Tooth Biology.Integrative and comparative biology · 2020
    Article
  6. 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. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yves Van de PeerDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB), Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B-9000 Gent, Belgium. yves.vandepeer@gengenp.rug.ac.be
John S Taylor
Axel Meyer
University of Konstanz · DEGhent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Euteleost fishes seem to have more copies of many genes than their tetrapod relatives. Three different mechanisms could explain the origin of these 'extra' fish genes. The duplicates may have been produced during a fish-specific genome duplication event. A second explanation is an increased rate of independent gene duplications in fish. A third possibility is that after gene or genome duplication events in the common ancestor of fish and tetrapods, the latter lost more genes. These three hypotheses have been tested by phylogenetic tree reconstruction. Phylogenetic analyses of sequences from human, mouse, chicken, frog (Xenopus laevis), zebrafish (Danio rerio) and pufferfish (Takifugu rubripes) suggest that ray-finned fishes are likely to have undergone a whole genome duplication event between 200 and 450 million years ago. We also comment here on the evolutionary consequences of this ancient genome duplication.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPolyploidyAnimalsFishesGene DuplicationGenomePhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID12836686
OpenAlexW2162188412

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.