ArticlePLoS computational biology2007
A phylogenomic study of human, dog, and mouse.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 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
49 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic STING agonist therapy drives expression of interferon stimulated genes and downstream production of cytokines in dogs with solid tumors.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- A directionally evolved genomic feature in BRSK2 harbors divergent alleles in neurocognitive disorders.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reapplication of the Type IV Hypersensitivity Quantitative Risk Assessment to Assess Ingredients Used on Canines.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Review
- Peering into the mind: unraveling schizophrenia's secrets using models.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Review
- Direct comparison of canine and human immune responses using transcriptomic and functional analyses.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparative characterization of two monoclonal antibodies targeting canine PD-1.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Leading the pack: Best practices in comparative canine cancer genomics to inform human oncology.Veterinary and comparative oncology · 2023Review
- Subvalvular Aortic Stenosis: Learning From Human and Canine Clinical Research.Cardiology research · 2023Review
- Muscarinic receptor antagonists and airway inflammation: A systematic review on pharmacological models.Heliyon · 2022Review
- Champagne: Automated Whole-Genome Phylogenomic Character Matrix Method Using Large Genomic Indels for Homoplasy-Free Inference.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Whole-genome microsynteny-based phylogeny of angiosperms.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Cortical evolution 2018: Advantages of animal model species.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2019Article
- Loose ends: almost one in five human genes still have unresolved coding status.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- Comprehensive annotation and evolutionary insights into the canine (Canis lupus familiaris) antigen receptor loci.Immunogenetics · 2018Article
- Phylogeny analysis from gene-order data with massive duplications.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- Concise Review: Developing Best-Practice Models for the Therapeutic Use of Extracellular Vesicles.Stem cells translational medicine · 2017Review
- Multiple evidence strands suggest that there may be as few as 19,000 human protein-coding genes.Human molecular genetics · 2014Article
- A comparative study and a phylogenetic exploration of the compositional architectures of mammalian nuclear genomes.PLoS computational biology · 2014Article
- Novel primate miRNAs coevolved with ancient target genes in germinal zone-specific expression patterns.Neuron · 2014Article
- Late-replicating CNVs as a source of new genes.Biology open · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years the phylogenetic relationship of mammalian orders has been addressed in a number of molecular studies. These analyses have frequently yielded inconsistent results with respect to some basal ordinal relationships. For example, the relative placement of primates, rodents, and carnivores has differed in various studies. Here, we attempt to resolve this phylogenetic problem by using data from completely sequenced nuclear genomes to base the analyses on the largest possible amount of data. To minimize the risk of reconstruction artifacts, the trees were reconstructed under different criteria-distance, parsimony, and likelihood. For the distance trees, distance metrics that measure independent phenomena (amino acid replacement, synonymous substitution, and gene reordering) were used, as it is highly improbable that all of the trees would be affected the same way by any reconstruction artifact. In contradiction to the currently favored classification, our results based on full-genome analysis of the phylogenetic relationship between human, dog, and mouse yielded overwhelming support for a primate-carnivore clade with the exclusion of rodents.
Indexed as
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.