ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2004
Statistical evidence for a more than 800-million-year-old evolutionarily conserved genomic region in our genome.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- O-GlcNAc cycling: emerging roles in development and epigenetics.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2010Review
- CASSIOPE: an expert system for conserved regions searches.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
- Gene cluster statistics with gene families.Molecular biology and evolution · 2009Article
- Domain duplication, divergence, and loss events in vertebrate Msx paralogs reveal phylogenomically informed disease markers.BMC evolutionary biology · 2009Article
- Bird and mammal sex-chromosome orthologs map to the same autosomal region in a salamander (ambystoma).Genetics · 2007Article
- FIGENIX: intelligent automation of genomic annotation: expertise integration in a new software platform.BMC bioinformatics · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of conserved genomic regions between different species is crucial for the reconstruction of their last common ancestor. Indeed, such regions of conservation in today's species (if not due to chance) may either constitute stigmata of an ancestrally conserved region or result from a series of independent convergent events. The more phylogenetically distant the compared species are, the more we expect rearrangements and thus difficulties in finding regions of conservation. Here we decipher with strong evidence conserved genomic regions between vertebrates (human and zebrafish) and arthropods (Drosophila and Anopheles). This work includes a robust phylogenetic analysis in conjunction with a stringent statistical testing that allowed the significant rejection of a "by chance" conservation hypothesis. The conservation of gene clusters across four different species from two phylogenetically distant groups makes the hypothesis of an ancestral conservation more likely and parsimonious than the hypothesis of individual convergent events. This result shows that, in spite of more than 800 million years of divergence and evolution from their last common ancestor, we can still reveal stigmata of conservation between all these species. The last common ancestor of zebrafish, human, Drosophila, and Anopheles is the common ancestor of all protostomes and deuterostomes known as "Urbilateria." This study reveals clusters of probably ancestrally conserved genes and constitutes an advance toward the reconstruction of the genome of Urbilateria. Thus this work allows a better understanding of the evolutionary history of metazoan genomes, including our genome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15693615What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.