ArticleGenome biology and evolution2012
Revealing mammalian evolutionary relationships by comparative analysis of gene clusters.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Duplication history and molecular evolution of the rbcS multigene family in angiosperms.Journal of experimental botany · 2019Article
- Comparative genomics of canine hemoglobin genes reveals primacy of beta subunit delta in adult carnivores.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- Gene turnover in the avian globin gene families and evolutionary changes in hemoglobin isoform expression.Molecular biology and evolution · 2015Article
- AGAPE (Automated Genome Analysis PipelinE) for pan-genome analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.PloS one · 2015Article
- Repeated evolution of chimeric fusion genes in the β-globin gene family of laurasiatherian mammals.Genome biology and evolution · 2014Article
- Evolution of hemoglobin and its genes.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many software tools for comparative analysis of genomic sequence data have been released in recent decades. Despite this, it remains challenging to determine evolutionary relationships in gene clusters due to their complex histories involving duplications, deletions, inversions, and conversions. One concept describing these relationships is orthology. Orthologs derive from a common ancestor by speciation, in contrast to paralogs, which derive from duplication. Discriminating orthologs from paralogs is a necessary step in most multispecies sequence analyses, but doing so accurately is impeded by the occurrence of gene conversion events. We propose a refined method of orthology assignment based on two paradigms for interpreting its definition: by genomic context or by sequence content. X-orthology (based on context) traces orthology resulting from speciation and duplication only, while N-orthology (based on content) includes the influence of conversion events. We developed a computational method for automatically mapping both types of orthology on a per-nucleotide basis in gene cluster regions studied by comparative sequencing, and we make this mapping accessible by visualizing the output. All of these steps are incorporated into our newly extended CHAP 2 package. We evaluate our method using both simulated data and real gene clusters (including the well-characterized α-globin and β-globin clusters). We also illustrate use of CHAP 2 by analyzing four more loci: CCL (chemokine ligand), IFN (interferon), CYP2abf (part of cytochrome P450 family 2), and KIR (killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors). These new methods facilitate and extend our understanding of evolution at these and other loci by adding automated accurate evolutionary inference to the biologist's toolkit. The CHAP 2 package is freely available from http://www.bx.psu.edu/miller_lab.
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.