Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25142746›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2014

A model for genome size evolution.

Stephan Fischer, Samuel Bernard, Guillaume Beslon, Carole Knibbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Transposable elements promote the evolution of genome streamlining.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Stephan FischerINSA-Lyon, Inria, CNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205, 69621, Villeurbanne, France, stephan.fischer@insa-lyon.fr.
Samuel Bernard
Guillaume Beslon
Carole Knibbe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a model for genome size evolution that takes into account both local mutations such as small insertions and small deletions, and large chromosomal rearrangements such as duplications and large deletions. We introduce the possibility of undergoing several mutations within one generation. The model, albeit minimalist, reveals a non-trivial spontaneous dynamics of genome size: in the absence of selection, an arbitrary large part of genomes remains beneath a finite size, even for a duplication rate 2.6-fold higher than the rate of large deletions, and even if there is also a systematic bias toward small insertions compared to small deletions. Specifically, we show that the condition of existence of an asymptotic stationary distribution for genome size non-trivially depends on the rates and mean sizes of the different mutation types. We also give upper bounds for the median and other quantiles of the genome size distribution, and argue that these bounds cannot be overcome by selection. Taken together, our results show that the spontaneous dynamics of genome size naturally prevents it from growing infinitely, even in cases where intuition would suggest an infinite growth. Using quantitative numerical examples, we show that, in practice, a shrinkage bias appears very quickly in genomes undergoing mutation accumulation, even though DNA gains and losses appear to be perfectly symmetrical at first sight. We discuss this spontaneous dynamics in the light of the other evolutionary forces proposed in the literature and argue that it provides them a stability-related size limit below which they can act.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularModels, GeneticChromosomesComputer SimulationGenomeGenome SizeMutation

Identifiers

PMID25142746
PMCPMC4153982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.