Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17062620›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2006

'Genome design' model and multicellular complexity: golden middle.

Alexander E Vinogradov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

1 author.

Alexander E VinogradovInstitute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 194064, Russia. aevin@mail.cytspb.rssi.ru

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human tissue-specific genes were reported to be longer than housekeeping genes (both in coding and intronic parts). The competing neutralist and adaptationist models were proposed to explain this observation. Here I show that in human genome the longest are genes with the intermediate expression pattern. From the standpoint of information theory, the regulation of such genes should be most complex. In the genomewide context, they are found here to have the higher informational load on all available levels: from participation in protein interaction networks, pathways and modules reflected in Gene Ontology categories through transcription factor regulatory sets and protein functional domains to amino acid tuples (words) in encoded proteins and nucleotide tuples in introns and promoter regions. Thus, the intermediately expressed genes have the higher functional and regulatory complexity that is reflected in their greater length (which is consistent with the 'genome design' model). The dichotomy of housekeeping versus tissue-specific entities is more pronounced on the modular level than on the molecular level. There are much lesser intermediate-specific modules (modules overrepresented in the intermediately expressed genes) than housekeeping or tissue-specific modules (normalized to gene number). The dichotomy of housekeeping versus tissue-specific genes and modules in multicellular organisms is probably caused by the burden of regulatory complexity acted on the intermediately expressed genes.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationGenome, HumanModels, GeneticGene Regulatory NetworksGenomicsHumansInformation TheoryIntronsProtein Structure, Tertiary

Identifiers

PMID17062620
PMCPMC1635334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.