Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17389874›Full record

ArticleMolecular systems biology2007

Backup without redundancy: genetic interactions reveal the cost of duplicate gene loss.

Jan Ihmels, Sean R Collins, Maya Schuldiner, Nevan J Krogan, Jonathan S Weissman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular systems biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing 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

87 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Retention of duplicated genes in evolution.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jan IhmelsDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-2542, USA. jan.ihmels@gmail.com
Sean R Collins
Maya Schuldiner
Nevan J Krogan
Jonathan S Weissman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many genes can be deleted with little phenotypic consequences. By what mechanism and to what extent the presence of duplicate genes in the genome contributes to this robustness against deletions has been the subject of considerable interest. Here, we exploit the availability of high-density genetic interaction maps to provide direct support for the role of backup compensation, where functionally overlapping duplicates cover for the loss of their paralog. However, we find that the overall contribution of duplicates to robustness against null mutations is low ( approximately 25%). The ability to directly identify buffering paralogs allowed us to further study their properties, and how they differ from non-buffering duplicates. Using environmental sensitivity profiles as well as quantitative genetic interaction spectra as high-resolution phenotypes, we establish that even duplicate pairs with compensation capacity exhibit rich and typically non-overlapping deletion phenotypes, and are thus unable to comprehensively cover against loss of their paralog. Our findings reconcile the fact that duplicates can compensate for each other's loss under a limited number of conditions with the evolutionary instability of genes whose loss is not associated with a phenotypic penalty.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEpistasis, GeneticGene DeletionGene DuplicationGenes, FungalModels, GeneticAlgorithmsDNA RepairEndoplasmic ReticulumEvolution, MolecularGenotypeMutationPhenotypeSaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID17389874
PMCPMC1847942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.