ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2007
Non-random genomic divergence in repetitive sequences of human and chimpanzee in genes of different functional categories.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Deluge of Complex Repeats: The Solanum Genome.PloS one · 2015Article
- Article
- Evolution of coding microsatellites in primate genomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2013Article
- Flanking region sequence information to refine microRNA target predictions.Journal of biosciences · 2010Article
- Finding Alu in primate genomes with AF-1.Bioinformation · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes has revealed approximately 99% similarity in the coding sequence between both the species, which in no way parallels the observable phenotypic differences. Contribution of the non-coding sequences which comprise a bulk of the genome, in functional divergence between human and chimpanzee, is largely understudied. In this context, we have compared extents of divergence in the non-coding repetitive DNA in a data set of well-classified neuronal and housekeeping genes between human and chimpanzee. The coding regions of these genes have earlier been extensively compared between the two species. It was revealed that the neurodevelopmental genes show accelerated evolution compared to neurophysiology and housekeeping genes in human. In this study, comparative analysis in terms of repeat spectrum, divergence in dinucleotide content density, JC divergence and its partitioning in repeats versus unique regions and transcription factor binding sites indicate different extents of functional constraints associated with the non-coding repeat regions. The constraints are also different when the upstream and downstream genic regions are compared across the functional categories. The neurodevelopmental genes seem to diverge more in the genic regions, whereas the neurophysiology genes show higher divergence in the upstream 2 kb region. Most of the divergence observed in the housekeeping genes is contributed by repeats. We also observe an accumulation of function-specific transcription factor profiles in the human lineage. Interestingly, a major fraction of the regulatory sites in these regions is differently partitioned in the repetitive sequences which in turn is dependant upon the relative distribution of the repeats across the functional categories. Thus, differential distribution of repeats across the various functional categories could have substantial effects on genome wide regulation and structure. The insights obtained from this study further add a new facet to the contribution of non-coding factors especially repeats in divergence of human and chimpanzee.
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.