Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17521457›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2007

Evaluating dosage compensation as a cause of duplicate gene retention in Paramecium tetraurelia.

Timothy Hughes, Diana Ekman, Himanshu Ardawatia, Arne Elofsson, David A Liberles

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. De novo assembly of the goldfish (Science advances · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Timothy HughesComputational Biology Unit, Bergen Center for Computational Science, University of Bergen, 5020 Bergen, Norway.
Diana Ekman
Himanshu Ardawatia
Arne Elofsson
David A Liberles
Stockholm University · SEUniversity of Wyoming · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The high retention of duplicate genes in the genome of Paramecium tetraurelia has led to the hypothesis that most of the retained genes have persisted because of constraints due to gene dosage. This and other possible mechanisms are discussed in the light of expectations from population genetics and systems biology.

Indexed as

Dosage Compensation, GeneticGene DuplicationAnimalsGenetics, PopulationGenome, ProtozoanParamecium tetraureliaSystems Biology

Identifiers

PMID17521457
PMCPMC1929130
OpenAlexW2136995417

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.