Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21965041›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2011

Selection-driven divergence after gene duplication in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Toni I Gossmann, Karl J Schmid

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Hybrid incompatibility caused by an epiallele.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Toni I GossmannLeibniz-Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben, Germany. toni.gossmann@googlemail.com
Karl J Schmid
University of Hohenheim · DEUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene duplications are one of the most important mechanisms for the origin of evolutionary novelties. Even though various models of the fate of duplicated genes have been established, current knowledge about the role of divergent selection after gene duplication is rather limited. In this study, we analyzed sequence divergence in response to neo- and subfunctionalization of segmentally duplicated genes in the genome of Arabidopsis thaliana. We compared the genomes of A. thaliana and the poplar Populus trichocarpa to identify orthologous pairs of genes and their corresponding inparalogs. Maximum-likelihood analyses of the nonsynonymous and synonymous substitution rate ratio [Formula: see text] of pairs of A. thaliana inparalogs were used to detect differences in the evolutionary rates of protein coding sequences. We analyzed 1,924 A. thaliana paralogous pairs and our results indicate that around 6.9% show divergent ω values between the lineages for a fraction of sites. We observe an enrichment of regulatory sequences, a reduced level of co-expression and an increased number of substitutions that can be attributed to positive selection based on an McDonald-Kreitman type of analysis. Taken together, these results show that selection after duplication contributes substantially to gene novelties and hence functional divergence in plants.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene DuplicationSelection, GeneticAmino Acid SequenceArabidopsisArabidopsis ProteinsComputer SimulationConserved SequenceGene ExpressionGenetic VariationLikelihood FunctionsModels, GeneticMultigene FamilyPopulusSegmental Duplications, GenomicSequence AlignmentArabidopsis Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21965041
OpenAlexW2010362723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.