Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12975314›Full record

ArticleGenome research2003

The signature of selection mediated by expression on human genes.

Araxi O Urrutia, Laurence D Hurst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing 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

145 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Dominant constraints on the evolution of rhythmic gene expression.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Kin selection for cooperation in natural bacterial populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  20. Review

85 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

2 authors.

Araxi O UrrutiaDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
Laurence D Hurst

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the efficacy of natural selection is expected to be a function of population size, in humans it is usually presumed that selection is a weak force and hence that gene characteristics are mostly determined by stochastic forces. In contrast, in species with large population sizes, selection is expected to be a much more effective force. Evidence for this has come from examining how genic parameters vary with expression level, which appears to determine many of a gene's features, such as codon bias, amino acid composition, and size. However, not until now has it been possible to examine whether human genes show the signature of selection mediated by expression level. Here, then, to investigate this issue, we gathered expression data for >10,000 human genes from public data sets obtained by different technologies (SAGE and high-density oligonucleotide chip arrays) and compared them with gene parameters. We find that, even after controlling for regional effects, highly expressed genes code for smaller proteins, have less intronic DNA, and higher codon and amino acid biases. We conclude that, contrary to the usual supposition, human genes show signatures consistent with selection mediated by expression level.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticChromosome MappingGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationGenetic LinkageGenetics, PopulationHumansPeptide BiosynthesisProtein BiosynthesisProteinsTranscription, GeneticProteins

Identifiers

PMID12975314
PMCPMC403694

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.