ArticleGenome biology and evolution2011
Evolutionary patterns of recently emerged animal duplogs.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The genomic architecture and molecular evolution of ant odorant receptors.Genome research · 2018Article
- Mechanisms of Gene Duplication and Translocation and Progress towards Understanding Their Relative Contributions to Animal Genome Evolution.International journal of evolutionary biology · 2012Article
- A graph-theoretic approach for inparalog detection.BMC bioinformatics · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Duplogs, or intraspecies paralogs, constitute the important portion of eukaryote genomes and serve as a major source of functional innovation. We conducted detailed analyses of recently emerged animal duplogs. Genome data of three vertebrate species (Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, and Danio rerio), Caenorhabditis elegans, and two Drosophila species (Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura) were used. Duplication events were divided into six age-groups according to the synonymous distance (dS) up to 0.6. Duplogs were classified into four equal-sized classes on physical distances and into three classes on relative orientations. We observed the following shared characteristics among intrachromosomal multiexon duplogs: 1) inverted duplogs account for 20-50%, and about a half of the physically most distant 25%; 2) except for C. elegans, the composition of physical distances, that of relative orientations, and the proportion of inverted duplogs in each physical distance category are more or less uniform; 3) except for C. elegans, the characteristics of the youngest (dS < 0.01) duplogs are similar to the overall characteristics of the entire set. These results suggest that intrachromosomal duplogs with fairly long physical distances were generated at once, rather than resulting from tandem duplications and subsequent genomic rearrangements. This is different from the three well-known modes of gene duplication: tandem duplication, retrotransposition, and genome duplication. We termed this new mode as "drift" duplication. The drift duplication has been producing duplicate copies at paces comparable with tandem duplications since the common ancestor of vertebrates, and it may have already operated in the common ancestor of bilateral animals.
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.