ArticleFrontiers in zoology2005
Conservation and co-option in developmental programmes: the importance of homology relationships.
Article in Frontiers in zoology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative single-cell analyses reveal evolutionary repurposing of a conserved gene programme in bat wing development.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- Induction of kidney-related gene programs through co-option of SALL1 in mole ovotestes.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2023Article
- A Chinese hamster transcription start site atlas that enables targeted editing of CHO cells.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- The Evolution of euAPETALA2 Genes in Vascular Plants: From Plesiomorphic Roles in Sporangia to Acquired Functions in Ovules and Fruits.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Evolutionary and developmental analysis reveals KANK genes were co-opted for vertebrate vascular development.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Embracing the comparative approach: how robust phylogenies and broader developmental sampling impacts the understanding of nervous system evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Review
- Species-specific modifications of mandible shape reveal independent mechanisms for growth and initiation of the coronoid.EvoDevo · 2015Article
- Article
- In silico evolution of gene cooption in pattern-forming gene networks.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2012Article
- Developmental constraints on vertebrate genome evolution.PLoS genetics · 2008Article
- A 4D-microscopic analysis of the germ band in the isopod crustacean Porcellio scaber (Malacostraca, Peracarida)-developmental and phylogenetic implications.Development genes and evolution · 2006Article
- The ten Hox genes of the millipede Glomeris marginata.Development genes and evolutionArticle
- Unburdening evo-devo: ancestral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney.Development genes and evolutionReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the surprising insights gained from research in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is that increasing diversity in body plans and morphology in organisms across animal phyla are not reflected in similarly dramatic changes at the level of gene composition of their genomes. For instance, simplicity at the tissue level of organization often contrasts with a high degree of genetic complexity. Also intriguing is the observation that the coding regions of several genes of invertebrates show high sequence similarity to those in humans. This lack of change (conservation) indicates that evolutionary novelties may arise more frequently through combinatorial processes, such as changes in gene regulation and the recruitment of novel genes into existing regulatory gene networks (co-option), and less often through adaptive evolutionary processes in the coding portions of a gene. As a consequence, it is of great interest to examine whether the widespread conservation of the genetic machinery implies the same developmental function in a last common ancestor, or whether homologous genes acquired new developmental roles in structures of independent phylogenetic origin. To distinguish between these two possibilities one must refer to current concepts of phylogeny reconstruction and carefully investigate homology relationships. Particularly problematic in terms of homology decisions is the use of gene expression patterns of a given structure. In the future, research on more organisms other than the typical model systems will be required since these can provide insights that are not easily obtained from comparisons among only a few distantly related model species.
Identifiers
What 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.