Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21333002›Full record

ReviewBiology direct2011

The role of duplications in the evolution of genomes highlights the need for evolutionary-based approaches in comparative genomics.

Anthony Levasseur, Pierre Pontarotti

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology direct, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Biodegradation of sodium selenite by a highly tolerant strainCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. StORF-Reporter: finding genes between genes.Nucleic acids research · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Microbial Genetics and Evolution.Microorganisms · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Anthony LevasseurINRA, UMR1163 de Biotechnologie des Champignons Filamenteux, IFR86-BAIM, Universités de Provence et de la Méditerranée, ESIL, 163 avenue de Luminy, CP 925, 13288 Marseille Cedex 09, France. Anthony.Levasseur@esil.univmed.fr
Pierre Pontarotti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the evolutionary plasticity of the genome requires a global, comparative approach in which genetic events are considered both in a phylogenetic framework and with regard to population genetics and environmental variables. In the mechanisms that generate adaptive and non-adaptive changes in genomes, segmental duplications (duplication of individual genes or genomic regions) and polyploidization (whole genome duplications) are well-known driving forces. The probability of fixation and maintenance of duplicates depends on many variables, including population sizes and selection regimes experienced by the corresponding genes: a combination of stochastic and adaptive mechanisms has shaped all genomes. A survey of experimental work shows that the distinction made between fixation and maintenance of duplicates still needs to be conceptualized and mathematically modeled. Here we review the mechanisms that increase or decrease the probability of fixation or maintenance of duplicated genes, and examine the outcome of these events on the adaptation of the organisms.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomicsGene DuplicationGenomeHumansPolyploidySaccharomyces cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID21333002
PMCPMC3052240

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.