Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25287147›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2014

Elucidating the genotype-phenotype relationships and network perturbations of human shared and specific disease genes from an evolutionary perspective.

Tina Begum, Tapash Chandra Ghosh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tina BegumBioinformatics Centre, Bose Institute, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Tapash Chandra GhoshBioinformatics Centre, Bose Institute, Kolkata, West Bengal, India tapash@jcbose.ac.in tapash_2000@yahoo.com.
Bose Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, numerous studies have been attempted to determine the extent of variation in evolutionary rates between human disease and nondisease (ND) genes. In our present study, we have considered human autosomal monogenic (Mendelian) disease genes, which were classified into two groups according to the number of phenotypic defects, that is, specific disease (SPD) gene (one gene: one defect) and shared disease (SHD) gene (one gene: multiple defects). Here, we have compared the evolutionary rates of these two groups of genes, that is, SPD genes and SHD genes with respect to ND genes. We observed that the average evolutionary rates are slow in SHD group, intermediate in SPD group, and fast in ND group. Group-to-group evolutionary rate differences remain statistically significant regardless of their gene expression levels and number of defects. We demonstrated that disease genes are under strong selective constraint if they emerge through edgetic perturbation or drug-induced perturbation of the interactome network, show tissue-restricted expression, and are involved in transmembrane transport. Among all the factors, our regression analyses interestingly suggest the independent effects of 1) drug-induced perturbation and 2) the interaction term of expression breadth and transmembrane transport on protein evolutionary rates. We reasoned that the drug-induced network disruption is a combination of several edgetic perturbations and, thus, has more severe effect on gene phenotypes.

Indexed as

DiseaseGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeHumansModels, GeneticPhenotypedrug-induced perturbationedgetic perturbationprotein evolutionary ratesshared disease genespecific disease gene

Identifiers

PMID25287147
PMCPMC4224346
OpenAlexW2123564304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.