Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14500911›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2003

Evolution's cauldron: duplication, deletion, and rearrangement in the mouse and human genomes.

W James Kent, Robert Baertsch, Angie Hinrichs, Webb Miller, David Haussler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 530 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
530citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

530 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The diploid reference genome of a human embryonic stem cell line.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Identification of theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Accelerating minimap2 for whole-genome alignment.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

W James KentCenter for Biomolecular Science and Engineering and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. kent@biology.ucsc.edu
Robert Baertsch
Angie Hinrichs
Webb Miller
David Haussler

Funding

UCSC Center for Genomic Science, and Minority Outreach ProgramP41HG002371 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI HAUSSLER, DAVID H · 2001 to 2011
$34.8M
SOFTWARE FOR ANALYZING BIOSEQUENCE DATAR01HG002238 · NHGRI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI MILLER, WEBB COLBY · 2000 to 2010
$7.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS 1P41HG-02371NHGRI NIH HHS HG-02238NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002371NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002238
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines genomic duplications, deletions, and rearrangements that have happened at scales ranging from a single base to complete chromosomes by comparing the mouse and human genomes. From whole-genome sequence alignments, 344 large (>100-kb) blocks of conserved synteny are evident, but these are further fragmented by smaller-scale evolutionary events. Excluding transposon insertions, on average in each megabase of genomic alignment we observe two inversions, 17 duplications (five tandem or nearly tandem), seven transpositions, and 200 deletions of 100 bases or more. This includes 160 inversions and 75 duplications or transpositions of length >100 kb. The frequencies of these smaller events are not substantially higher in finished portions in the assembly. Many of the smaller transpositions are processed pseudogenes; we define a "syntenic" subset of the alignments that excludes these and other small-scale transpositions. These alignments provide evidence that approximately 2% of the genes in the human/mouse common ancestor have been deleted or partially deleted in the mouse. There also appears to be slightly less nontransposon-induced genome duplication in the mouse than in the human lineage. Although some of the events we detect are possibly due to misassemblies or missing data in the current genome sequence or to the limitations of our methods, most are likely to represent genuine evolutionary events. To make these observations, we developed new alignment techniques that can handle large gaps in a robust fashion and discriminate between orthologous and paralogous alignments.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene DeletionGene DuplicationGenomeAnimalsMice

Identifiers

PMID14500911
PMCPMC208784

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.