Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17785537›Full record

ArticleGenome research2007

The evolution of genome compression and genomic novelty in RNA viruses.

Robert Belshaw, Oliver G Pybus, Andrew Rambaut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

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

3 authors.

Robert BelshawDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom. robert.belshaw@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Oliver G Pybus
Andrew Rambaut

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genomes of RNA viruses are characterized by their extremely small size and extremely high mutation rates (typically 10 kb and 10(-4)/base/replication cycle, respectively), traits that are thought to be causally linked. One aspect of their small size is the genome compression caused by the use of overlapping genes (where some nucleotides code for two genes). Using a comparative analysis of all known RNA viral species, we show that viruses with larger genomes tend to have less gene overlap. We provide a numerical model to show how a high mutation rate could lead to gene overlap, and we discuss the factors that might explain the observed relationship between gene overlap and genome size. We also propose a model for the evolution of gene overlap based on the co-opting of previously unused ORFs, which gives rise to two types of overlap: (1) the creation of novel genes inside older genes, predominantly via +1 frameshifts, and (2) the incremental increase in overlap between originally contiguous genes, with no frameshift preference. Both types of overlap are viewed as the creation of genomic novelty under pressure for genome compression. Simulations based on our model generate the empirical size distributions of overlaps and explain the observed frameshift preferences. We suggest that RNA viruses are a good model system for the investigation of general evolutionary relationship between genome attributes such as mutational robustness, mutation rate, and size.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenome, ViralFrameshifting, RibosomalFrameshift MutationGenes, OverlappingModels, GeneticMutationOpen Reading FramesRNA Viruses

Identifiers

PMID17785537
PMCPMC1987338

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.