Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23945682›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2013

The evolution of complex gene regulation by low-specificity binding sites.

Alexander J Stewart, Joshua B Plotkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Modeling thePeerJ · 2017
    Article
  6. The thermostability and specificity of ancient proteins.Current opinion in structural biology · 2016
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Alexander J StewartDepartment of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joshua B Plotkin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Requirements for gene regulation vary widely both within and among species. Some genes are constitutively expressed, whereas other genes require complex regulatory control. Transcriptional regulation is often controlled by a module of multiple transcription factor binding sites that, in combination, mediate the expression of a target gene. Here, we study how such regulatory modules evolve in response to natural selection. Using a population-genetic model, we show that complex regulatory modules which contain a larger number of binding sites must employ binding motifs that are less specific, on average, compared with smaller regulatory modules. This effect is extremely general, and it holds regardless of the selected binding logic that a module experiences. We attribute this phenomenon to the inability of stabilizing selection to maintain highly specific sites in large regulatory modules. Our analysis helps to explain broad empirical trends in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae regulatory network: those genes with a greater number of distinct transcriptional regulators feature less-specific binding motifs, compared with genes with fewer regulators. Our results also help to explain empirical trends in module size and motif specificity across species, ranging from prokaryotes to single-cellular and multi-cellular eukaryotes.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksBinding SitesModels, GeneticMutationcis-regulatory evolutiongene regulationpopulation genetics

Identifiers

PMID23945682
PMCPMC3757967

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.