Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16982007›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2006

Effect of random and hub gene disruptions on environmental and mutational robustness in Escherichia coli.

Tim F Cooper, Andrew P Morby, Annabel Gunn, Dominique Schneider

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. On the Nature and Evolutionary Impact of Phenotypic Robustness Mechanisms.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics · 2014
    Article
  8. Spatiotemporal signalling in plant development.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2013
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Discovery of gene network variability across samples representing multiple classes.International journal of bioinformatics research and applications · 2010
    Article
  18. Robustness: mechanisms and consequences.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2009
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Tim F CooperSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. t.cooper@auckland.ac.nz
Andrew P Morby
Annabel Gunn
Dominique Schneider

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome-wide profiling has allowed the regulatory interaction networks of many organisms to be visualised and the pattern of connections between genes to be studied. These networks are non-random, following a power-law distribution with a small number of well-connected 'hubs' and many genes with only one or a few connections. Theoretical work predicts that power-law networks display several unique properties. One of the most biologically interesting of these is an intrinsic robustness to disturbance such that removal of a random gene will have little effect on network function. Conversely, targeted removal of a hub gene is expected to have a large effect.

resultsWe compared the response of Escherichia coli to environmental and mutational stress following disruption of random or hub genes. We found that disruption of random genes had less effect on robustness to environmental stress than did the targeted disruption of hub genes. In contrast, random disruption strains were slightly less robust to the effect of mutational stress than were hub disruption strains. When we compared the effect of each disruption on environmental and mutational stress, we found a negative relationship, such that strains that were more environmentally robust tended to be less robust to mutational stress.

conclusionOur results demonstrate that mutant strains of E. coli respond differently to stress, depending on whether random or hub genes are disrupted. This difference indicates that the power-law distribution of regulatory interactions has biological significance, making random disruptions less deleterious to organisms facing environmental stress. That E. coli can reduce the effect of environmental stress without reducing the phenotypic effect of additional mutations, indicates that robustness and evolvability need not be antagonistic.

Indexed as

Genes, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsDNA, BacterialDNA Transposable ElementsEdetic AcidEnvironmentEscherichia coliEscherichia coli ProteinsGene DeletionGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGene TargetingHydrochloric AcidHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMetalsMutagenesis, InsertionalMutationAnti-Bacterial AgentsDNA, BacterialDNA Transposable ElementsEdetic AcidEscherichia coli ProteinsHydrochloric AcidMetalsSaline Solution, HypertonicSodium Hydroxide

Identifiers

PMID16982007
PMCPMC1590030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.