Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15596464›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2005

Economy, speed and size matter: evolutionary forces driving nuclear genome miniaturization and expansion.

Thomas Cavalier-Smith

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed
20.0field-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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 397 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The Kinetic Intron Hypothesis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

98 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas Cavalier-SmithDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK. tom.cavalier-smith@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Oxford Research Group · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNuclear genome size varies 300 000-fold, whereas transcriptome size varies merely 17-fold. In the largest genomes nearly all DNA is non-genic secondary DNA, mostly intergenic but also within introns. There is now compelling evidence that secondary DNA is functional, i.e. positively selected by organismal selection, not the purely neutral or 'selfish' outcome of mutation pressure. The skeletal DNA theory argued that nuclear volumes are genetically determined primarily by nuclear DNA amounts, modulated somewhat by genes affecting the degree of DNA packing or unfolding; the huge spread of nuclear genome sizes is the necessary consequence of the origin of the nuclear envelope and the nucleation of its assembly by DNA, plus the adaptively significant 300 000-fold range of cell volumes and selection for balanced growth by optimizing karyoplasmic volume ratios (essentially invariant with cell volume in growing/multiplying cells). This simple explanation of the C-value paradox is refined here in the light of new insights into the nature of heterochromatin and the nuclear lamina, the genetic control of cell volume, and large-scale eukaryote phylogeny, placing special emphasis on protist test cases of the basic principles of nuclear genome size evolution. GENOME MINIATURIZATION: and Expansion Intracellular parasites (e.g. Plasmodium, microsporidia) dwarfed their genomes by gene loss and eliminating virtually all secondary DNA. The primary driving forces for genome reduction are metabolic and spatial economy and cell multiplication speed. Most extreme nuclear shrinkage yielded genomes as tiny as 0.38 Mb (making the nuclear genome size range effectively 1.8 million-fold!) in some minute enslaved nuclei (nucleomorphs) of cryptomonads and chlorarachneans, chimaeric cells that also retain a separate normal large nucleus. The latter shows typical correlation between genome size and cell volume, but nucleomorphs do not despite co-existing in the same cell for >500 My. Thus mutation pressure does not inexorably increase genome size; selection can eliminate essentially all non-coding DNA if need be. Nucleomorphs and microsporidia even reduced gene size. Expansion of secondary DNA in the main nucleus, and in large-celled eukaryotes generally, must be positively selected for function. Ciliate nuclear dimorphism provides a key test that refutes the selfish DNA and strongly supports the skeletal DNA/karyoplasmic ratio interpretation of genome size evolution. GENETIC CONTROL OF CELL VOLUME IS MULTIGENIC: The quantitatively proportional correlation between genome size and cell size cannot be explained by purely mutational theories, as eukaryote cell volumes are causally determined by cell cycle control genes, not by DNA amounts.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomeAnimalsBacteriaCell CountCell NucleusCell ProliferationDNAEukaryotic CellsHeterochromatinMiniaturizationDNAHeterochromatin

Identifiers

PMID15596464
PMCPMC4246715
OpenAlexW2151777559

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.