Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23552219›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2013

Functional and evolutionary implications of gene orthology.

Toni Gabaldón, Eugene V Koonin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 375 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
375citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

375 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Weight of evidence for cross-species conservation of androgen receptor-based biological activity.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cryo-EM structure of detergent-boundbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Revisiting Glutathione Transferases ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Adaptive molecular convergence is pervasive across deep time and largely decoupled from phenotypic convergence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

315 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Toni GabaldónBioinformatics and Genomics Programme, Centre for Genomic Regulation and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Dr. Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. tgabaldon@crg.es
Eugene V Koonin

Funding

Comparative Analysis Of Completely Sequenced GenomesZIALM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 2009 to 2025
$43.1M
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLETELY SEQUENCED GENOMESZ01LM000073 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KOONIN, EUGENE V · 1996 to 2008
$1.2M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 LM000073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthologues and paralogues are types of homologous genes that are related by speciation or duplication, respectively. Orthologous genes are generally assumed to retain equivalent functions in different organisms and to share other key properties. Several recent comparative genomic studies have focused on testing these expectations. Here we discuss the complexity of the evolution of gene-phenotype relationships and assess the validity of the key implications of orthology and paralogy relationships as general statistical trends and guiding principles.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAnimalsGenomicsHumansModels, AnimalModels, GeneticPhenotypePhylogenySequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID23552219
PMCPMC5877793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.