Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16128622›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2005

Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate.

Paramvir Dehal, Jeffrey L Boore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 775 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
775citing 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

775 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Fine-tuning neuron number:bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Similarities betweeneNeuro · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Distinct evolutionary trajectories of gene duplication modes in 40 diploid cotton genomes.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

715 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.

Paramvir DehalEvolutionary Genomics Department, Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Walnut Creek, California, USA. PSDehal@LBL.gov
Jeffrey L Boore

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hypothesis that the relatively large and complex vertebrate genome was created by two ancient, whole genome duplications has been hotly debated, but remains unresolved. We reconstructed the evolutionary relationships of all gene families from the complete gene sets of a tunicate, fish, mouse, and human, and then determined when each gene duplicated relative to the evolutionary tree of the organisms. We confirmed the results of earlier studies that there remains little signal of these events in numbers of duplicated genes, gene tree topology, or the number of genes per multigene family. However, when we plotted the genomic map positions of only the subset of paralogous genes that were duplicated prior to the fish-tetrapod split, their global physical organization provides unmistakable evidence of two distinct genome duplication events early in vertebrate evolution indicated by clear patterns of four-way paralogous regions covering a large part of the human genome. Our results highlight the potential for these large-scale genomic events to have driven the evolutionary success of the vertebrate lineage.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenes, DuplicateAnimalsCiona intestinalisComputational BiologyDrosophilaGenomeHumansMiceMultigene FamilyPhylogenyTakifuguVertebrates

Identifiers

PMID16128622
PMCPMC1197285

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.