ArticleEvolution & development
Differential selection within the Drosophila retinal determination network and evidence for functional divergence between paralog pairs.
Article in Evolution & development. 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.
- Allocation of distinct organ fates from a precursor field requires a shift in expression and function of gene regulatory networks.PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- The tiptop/teashirt genes regulate cell differentiation and renal physiology in Drosophila.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2013Article
- Dual transcriptional activities of SIX proteins define their roles in normal and ectopic eye development.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2012Article
- A dissection of the teashirt and tiptop genes reveals a novel mechanism for regulating transcription factor activity.Developmental biology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The retinal determination (RD) network in Drosophila comprises 14 known nuclear proteins that include DNA-binding proteins, transcriptional coactivators, kinases, and phosphatases. The composition of the network varies considerably throughout the animal kingdom, with the network in several basal insects having fewer members and with vertebrates having potentially significantly higher numbers of RD genes. One important contributing factor for the variation in gene number within the network is gene duplication. For example, 10 members of the RD network in Drosophila are derived from duplication events. Here we present an analysis of the coding regions of the five pairs of duplicate genes from within the RD network of several different Drosophila species. We demonstrate that there is differential selection across the coding regions of all RD genes. Additionally, some of the most significant differences in ratios of non-silent-to-silent site substitutions (d(N)/d(S)) between paralog pairs are found within regions that have no ascribed function. Previous structure/function analyses of several duplicate genes have identified areas within one gene that contain novel activities when compared with its paralog. The evolutionary analysis presented here identifies these same areas in the paralogs as being under high levels of relaxed selection. We suggest that sequence divergence between paralogs and selection signatures can be used as a reasonable predictor of functional changes in rapidly evolving motifs.
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.