Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17479344›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2007

Evolution of gene overlaps: relative reading frame bias in prokaryotic two-component system genes.

Peter J A Cock, David E Whitworth

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter J A CockMOAC Doctoral Training Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
David E Whitworth
University of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During a survey of two-component system genes, a list of neighboring histidine kinase and response regulator genes, encoded on the same strand, was compiled from over 200 fully sequenced bacteria. It was observed that many gene pairs overlapped, and although such overlaps can potentially occur in two phases (relative reading frames), one phase predominated for overlaps of seven or more nucleotides. Preference for a particular phase cannot be explained by arguments of sequence restraint (mutations in one gene differentially affect an overlapping gene, depending on phase). We have therefore investigated a potential explanation of the observed phase bias. For phase +1 gene overlaps, simulated point mutations in the overlapping region result in more severe changes to the downstream gene product than to the upstream gene product; vice versa in phase +2. Additionally, codon usage frequencies in nonoverlapping regions are more similar to those at the end of the upstream gene than the beginning of the downstream gene in overlaps. Taking both observations together, we propose that new gene overlaps generally arise by N-terminal extension of a downstream gene, creating a novel sequence at the start of the downstream gene. Sequence changes in this newly coding sequence will alter the sequences of both the new and the original coding sequence (the C-terminal region of the upstream gene). However, these changes will be less detrimental to the original coding sequence if the two genes overlap in phase +1, leading to selective retention during evolution of phase +1 overlaps relative to phase +2 overlaps.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAmino AcidsCodonGenes, BacterialGenes, OverlappingMutationProkaryotic CellsReading FramesAmino AcidsCodon

Identifiers

PMID17479344
OpenAlexW2122156830

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.