Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19732467›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2009

FoxO gene family evolution in vertebrates.

Minghui Wang, Xiangzhe Zhang, Hongbo Zhao, Qishan Wang, Yuchun Pan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Forkhead box O proteins: steering the course of stem cell fate.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2024
    Review
  8. Frontiers in oncology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. FOXO family isoforms.Cell death & disease · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. FOXO inBiology · 2023
    Article
  13. FOXOs: masters of the equilibrium.The FEBS journal · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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 1 country.

Minghui WangSchool of Agriculture and Biology, Department of Animal Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, PR China. wangmh-1981@sjtu.edu.cn
Xiangzhe Zhang
Hongbo Zhao
Qishan Wang
Yuchun Pan
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShanghai Veterinary Research Institute · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForkhead box, class O (FoxO) belongs to the large family of forkhead transcription factors that are characterized by a conserved forkhead box DNA-binding domain. To date, the FoxO group has four mammalian members: FoxO1, FoxO3a, FoxO4 and FoxO6, which are orthologs of DAF16, an insulin-responsive transcription factor involved in regulating longevity of worms and flies. The degree of homology between these four members is high, especially in the forkhead domain, which contains the DNA-binding interface. Yet, mouse FoxO knockouts have revealed that each FoxO gene has its unique role in the physiological process. Whether the functional divergences are primarily due to adaptive selection pressure or relaxed selective constraint remains an open question. As such, this study aims to address the evolutionary mode of FoxO, which may lead to the functional divergence.

resultsSequence similarity searches have performed in genome and scaffold data to identify homologues of FoxO in vertebrates. Phylogenetic analysis was used to characterize the family evolutionary history by identifying two duplications early in vertebrate evolution. To determine the mode of evolution in vertebrates, we performed a rigorous statistical analysis with FoxO gene sequences, including relative rate ratio tests, branch-specific dN/dS ratio tests, site-specific dN/dS ratio tests, branch-site dN/dS ratio tests and clade level amino acid conservation/variation patterns analysis. Our results suggest that FoxO is constrained by strong purifying selection except four sites in FoxO6, which have undergone positive Darwinian selection. The functional divergence in this family is best explained by either relaxed purifying selection or positive selection.

conclusionWe present a phylogeny describing the evolutionary history of the FoxO gene family and show that the genes have evolved through duplications followed by purifying selection except for four sites in FoxO6 fixed by positive selection lie mostly within the non-conserved optimal PKB motif in the C-terminal part. Relaxed selection may play important roles in the process of functional differentiation evolved through gene duplications as well.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAnimalsForkhead Transcription FactorsPhylogenyVertebratesForkhead Transcription Factors

Identifiers

PMID19732467
PMCPMC2746812
OpenAlexW2046499301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.