ArticleCurrent genomics2013
Evolutionary constraints favor a biophysical model explaining hox gene collinearity.
Article in Current genomics, 2013. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical Laws Shape Up HOX Gene Collinearity.Journal of developmental biology · 2021Review
- Two Tier Hox Collinearity Mediates Vertebrate Axial Patterning.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2018Article
- Article
- Collinear Hox-Hox interactions are involved in patterning the vertebrate anteroposterior (A-P) axis.PloS one · 2017Article
- Accumulation of transposable elements in Hox gene clusters during adaptive radiation of Anolis lizards.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2016Article
- Hox Gene Collinearity: From A-P Patterning to Radially Symmetric Animals.Current genomics · 2015Article
- Temporal dynamics and developmental memory of 3D chromatin architecture at Hox gene loci.eLife · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Hox gene collinearity enigma has often been approached using models based on biomolecular mechanisms. The biophysical model is an alternative approach based on the hypothesis that collinearity is caused by physical forces pulling the Hox genes from a territory where they are inactive to a distinct spatial domain where they are activated in a step by step manner. Such Hox gene translocations have recently been observed in support of the biophysical model. Genetic engineering experiments, performed on embryonic mice, gave rise to several unexpected mutant expressions that the biomolecular models cannot predict. On the contrary, the biophysical model offers convincing explanation. Evolutionary constraints consolidate the Hox clusters and as a result, denser and well organized clusters may create more efficient physical forces and a more emphatic manifestation of gene collinearity. This is demonstrated by stochastic modeling with white noise perturbing the expression of Hox genes. As study cases the genomes of mouse and amphioxus are used. The results support the working hypothesis that vertebrates have adopted their comparably more compact Hox clustering as a tool needed to develop more complex body structures. Several experiments are proposed in order to test further the physical forces hypothesis.
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.