Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24361993›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2014

Detecting and locating whole genome duplications on a phylogeny: a probabilistic approach.

Charles-Elie Rabier, Tram Ta, Cécile Ané

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. PolyploidFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Charles-Elie RabierDepartment of Statistics, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Tram Ta
Cécile Ané

Funding

Interdisciplinary Training Program in Cardiovascular and Pulmonary BiostatisticsT32HL083806 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI RATHOUZ, PAUL JOSEPH · 2006 to 2015
$1.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL083806
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole genome duplications (WGDs) followed by massive gene loss occurred in the evolutionary history of many groups. WGDs are usually inferred from the age distribution of paralogs (Ks-based methods) or from gene collinearity data (synteny). However, Ks-based methods are restricted to detect the recent WGDs due to saturation effects and the difficulty to date old duplicates, and synteny is difficult to reconstruct for distantly related species. Recently, Jiao et al. (Jiao Y, Wickett N, Ayyampalayam S, Chanderbali AS, Landherr L, Ralph PE, Tomsho LP, Hu Y, Liang H, Soltis PS, et al. 2011. Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms. Nature 473:97-100) introduced an empirical method that aims to detect a peak in duplication ages among nodes selected from a previous phylogenetic analysis. In this context, we present here two rigorous methods based on data from multiple gene families and on a new probabilistic model. Our model assumes that all gene lineages are instantaneously duplicated at the WGD event with a possible almost-immediate loss of some extra copies. Our reconciliation method relies on aligned molecular sequences, whereas our gene count method relies only on gene count data across species. We show, using extensive simulations, that both methods have a good detection power. Surprisingly, the gene count method enjoys no loss of power compared with the reconciliation method, despite the fact that sequence information is not used. We finally illustrate the performance of our methods on a benchmark yeast data set. Both methods are able to detect the well-known WGD in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae clade and agree on a small retention rate at the WGD, as established by synteny-based methods.

Indexed as

PhylogenyProbabilityComputer SimulationDatabases, GeneticGene DuplicationGenes, FungalGenome, FungalMultigene FamilySaccharomyces cerevisiaeSpecies Specificitybirth and death processgene duplicationgene familiesgene lossgenome evolutionphylogenetics

Identifiers

PMID24361993
PMCPMC4038794

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.