Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19030023›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2009

RNA-based gene duplication: mechanistic and evolutionary insights.

Henrik Kaessmann, Nicolas Vinckenbosch, Manyuan Long

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 268 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
268citing 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

268 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. MolluscaGenes: A Transcriptomic Database for the Mollusca.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Adaptive deletion of functional duplicate genes inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

208 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.

Henrik KaessmannCenter for Integrative Genomics, University of Lausanne, Genopode, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Henrik.Kaessmann@unil.ch
Nicolas Vinckenbosch
Manyuan Long

Funding

Detection of Distribution of New Genes in Drosophila PhylogenyR01GM078070 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI LONG, MANYUAN · 2007 to 2010
$1.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM078070PHS HHS R0IGM078070-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene copies that stem from the mRNAs of parental source genes have long been viewed as evolutionary dead-ends with little biological relevance. Here we review a range of recent studies that have unveiled a significant number of functional retroposed gene copies in both mammalian and some non-mammalian genomes. These studies have not only revealed previously unknown mechanisms for the emergence of new genes and their functions but have also provided fascinating general insights into molecular and evolutionary processes that have shaped genomes. For example, analyses of chromosomal gene movement patterns via RNA-based gene duplication have shed fresh light on the evolutionary origin and biology of our sex chromosomes.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene DuplicationAnimalsGenes, DuplicateHumansModels, GeneticPhylogenyRegulatory Elements, TranscriptionalRetroelementsRNARNA, MessengerSex ChromosomesRetroelementsRNARNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID19030023
PMCPMC3690669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.