ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2010
Comparing the retention mechanisms of tandem duplicates and retrogenes in human and mouse genomes.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary orthologs from local sequence context.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Article
- The Genomic Impact of Gene Retrocopies: What Have We Learned from Comparative Genomics, Population Genomics, and Transcriptomic Analyses?Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Positional orthology: putting genomic evolutionary relationships into context.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2011Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple models have been proposed to interpret the retention of duplicated genes. In this study, we attempted to compare whether the duplicates arising from tandem duplications and retropositions are retained by the same mechanisms in human and mouse genomes.
resultsBoth sequence and expression similarity analyses revealed that tandem duplicates tend to be more conserved, whereas retrogenes tend to be more divergent. The duplicability of tandem duplicates is also higher than that of retrogenes. However, positive selection seems to play significant roles in the retention of both types of duplicates.
conclusionsWe propose that dosage effect is more prevalent in the retention of tandem duplicates, while 'escape from adaptive conflict' (EAC) effect is more prevalent in the retention of retrogenes.
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.