Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18562662›Full record

ArticleGenetics2008

Probabilistic cross-species inference of orthologous genomic regions created by whole-genome duplication in yeast.

Gavin C Conant, Kenneth H Wolfe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. POInTBMC bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic and transcriptomic analyses of the subterranean termiteProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Transcriptomic Response toFrontiers in genetics · 2021
    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

2 authors.

Gavin C ConantSmurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Kenneth H Wolfe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identification of orthologous genes across species becomes challenging in the presence of a whole-genome duplication (WGD). We present a probabilistic method for identifying orthologs that considers all possible orthology/paralogy assignments for a set of genomes with a shared WGD (here five yeast species). This approach allows us to estimate how confident we can be in the orthology assignments in each genomic region. Two inferences produced by this model are indicative of purifying selection acting to prevent duplicate gene loss. First, our model suggests that there are significant differences (up to a factor of seven) in duplicate gene half-life. Second, we observe differences between the genes that the model infers to have been lost soon after WGD and those lost more recently. Gene losses soon after WGD appear uncorrelated with gene expression level and knockout fitness defect. However, later losses are biased toward genes whose paralogs have high expression and large knockout fitness defects, as well as showing biases toward certain functional groups such as ribosomal proteins. We suggest that while duplicate copies of some genes may be lost neutrally after WGD, another set of genes may be initially preserved in duplicate by natural selection for reasons including dosage.

Indexed as

Gene DuplicationSequence Homology, Nucleic AcidCandida glabrataGenes, FungalGenome, FungalModels, GeneticPhylogenySaccharomyces cerevisiaeSpecies SpecificityTime FactorsYeasts

Identifiers

PMID18562662
PMCPMC2475760

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.