Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16024819›Full record

ArticleGenome research2005

Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes.

Adam Siepel, Gill Bejerano, Jakob S Pedersen, Angie S Hinrichs, Minmei Hou, Kate Rosenbloom, Hiram Clawson, John Spieth, Ladeana W Hillier, Stephen Richards and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2,585 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2,585citing 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

2,585 citing papers in PubMed, 4,259 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. AlphaGenome Atlas:medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2,525 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Adam SiepelCenter for Biomolecular Science and Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA. acs@soe.ucsc.edu
Gill Bejerano
Jakob S Pedersen
Angie S Hinrichs
Minmei Hou
Kate Rosenbloom
Hiram Clawson
John Spieth
Ladeana W Hillier
Stephen Richards
George M Weinstock
Richard K Wilson
Richard A Gibbs
W James Kent
Webb Miller
David Haussler
Aarhus University · DKUniversity of California, Santa Cruz · US

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 HG02238NHGRI NIH HHS IP41HG02371NHGRI NIH HHS P41 HG002371NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002238
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have conducted a comprehensive search for conserved elements in vertebrate genomes, using genome-wide multiple alignments of five vertebrate species (human, mouse, rat, chicken, and Fugu rubripes). Parallel searches have been performed with multiple alignments of four insect species (three species of Drosophila and Anopheles gambiae), two species of Caenorhabditis, and seven species of Saccharomyces. Conserved elements were identified with a computer program called phastCons, which is based on a two-state phylogenetic hidden Markov model (phylo-HMM). PhastCons works by fitting a phylo-HMM to the data by maximum likelihood, subject to constraints designed to calibrate the model across species groups, and then predicting conserved elements based on this model. The predicted elements cover roughly 3%-8% of the human genome (depending on the details of the calibration procedure) and substantially higher fractions of the more compact Drosophila melanogaster (37%-53%), Caenorhabditis elegans (18%-37%), and Saccharaomyces cerevisiae (47%-68%) genomes. From yeasts to vertebrates, in order of increasing genome size and general biological complexity, increasing fractions of conserved bases are found to lie outside of the exons of known protein-coding genes. In all groups, the most highly conserved elements (HCEs), by log-odds score, are hundreds or thousands of bases long. These elements share certain properties with ultraconserved elements, but they tend to be longer and less perfectly conserved, and they overlap genes of somewhat different functional categories. In vertebrates, HCEs are associated with the 3' UTRs of regulatory genes, stable gene deserts, and megabase-sized regions rich in moderately conserved noncoding sequences. Noncoding HCEs also show strong statistical evidence of an enrichment for RNA secondary structure.

Indexed as

Conserved SequenceEvolution, Molecular3' Untranslated RegionsAnimalsBase PairingBase SequenceCaenorhabditis elegansDNA, IntergenicGenomeHumansInsectaMolecular Sequence DataSaccharomycesVertebratesYeasts3' Untranslated RegionsDNA, Intergenic

Identifiers

PMID16024819
PMCPMC1182216
OpenAlexW2145191876

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.