ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2010
Gene duplication in the genome of parasitic Giardia lamblia.
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Phosphoglycerate kinase: structural aspects and functions, with special emphasis on the enzyme from Kinetoplastea.Open biology · 2020Review
- Environmental adaptation ofInternational journal of biological sciences · 2018Article
- Evolution of parasitism along convergent lines: from ecology to genomics.Parasitology · 2015Review
- A survey of innovation through duplication in the reduced genomes of twelve parasites.PloS one · 2014Article
- Rewiring of posttranscriptional RNA regulons: Puf4p in fungi as an example.Molecular biology and evolution · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiardia are a group of widespread intestinal protozoan parasites in a number of vertebrates. Much evidence from G. lamblia indicated they might be the most primitive extant eukaryotes. When and how such a group of the earliest branching unicellular eukaryotes developed the ability to successfully parasitize the latest branching higher eukaryotes (vertebrates) is an intriguing question. Gene duplication has long been thought to be the most common mechanism in the production of primary resources for the origin of evolutionary novelties. In order to parse the evolutionary trajectory of Giardia parasitic lifestyle, here we carried out a genome-wide analysis about gene duplication patterns in G. lamblia.
resultsAlthough genomic comparison showed that in G. lamblia the contents of many fundamental biologic pathways are simplified and the whole genome is very compact, in our study 40% of its genes were identified as duplicated genes. Evolutionary distance analyses of these duplicated genes indicated two rounds of large scale duplication events had occurred in G. lamblia genome. Functional annotation of them further showed that the majority of recent duplicated genes are VSPs (Variant-specific Surface Proteins), which are essential for the successful parasitic life of Giardia in hosts. Based on evolutionary comparison with their hosts, it was found that the rapid expansion of VSPs in G. lamblia is consistent with the evolutionary radiation of placental mammals.
conclusionsBased on the genome-wide analysis of duplicated genes in G. lamblia, we found that gene duplication was essential for the origin and evolution of Giardia parasitic lifestyle. The recent expansion of VSPs uniquely occurring in G. lamblia is consistent with the increment of its hosts. Therefore we proposed a hypothesis that the increment of Giradia hosts might be the driving force for the rapid expansion of VSPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.