ReviewGenome biology and evolution2015
An evolutionary classification of genomic function.
Review in Genome biology and evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Prediction of Epitranscriptome.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Unveiling the regulatory potential of the non-coding genome: Insights from the human genome project to precision medicine.Genes & diseases · 2025Review
- Article
- Repeatome diversity in sea anemone genomics (Cnidaria: Actiniaria) based on the Actiniaria-REPlib library.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- The De Novo Emergence of Two Brain Genes in the Human Lineage Appears to be Unsupported.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Pseudogenes in plasmid genomes reveal past transitions in plasmid mobility.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- When synthetic biology meets medicine.Life medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- The state of Medusozoa genomics: current evidence and future challenges.GigaScience · 2022Review
- In-Depth Satellitome Analyses of 37 Drosophila Species Illuminate Repetitive DNA Evolution in the Drosophila Genus.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Review
- Plant Mitochondria are a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma.Journal of molecular evolution · 2021Article
- The Genomics of Plant Satellite DNA.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2021Review
- Review
- Genome size evolution: towards new model systems for old questions.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Amazing symmetrical clustering in chloroplast genomes.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Are Antisense Proteins in Prokaryotes Functional?Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
- The meanings of 'function' in biology and the problematic case of de novo gene emergence.eLife · 2019Article
- Deep Conservation ofThe Plant cell · 2019Article
- Correlated Selection on Amino Acid Deletion and Replacement in Mammalian Protein Sequences.Journal of molecular evolution · 2018Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pronouncements of the ENCODE Project Consortium regarding "junk DNA" exposed the need for an evolutionary classification of genomic elements according to their selected-effect function. In the classification scheme presented here, we divide the genome into "functional DNA," that is, DNA sequences that have a selected-effect function, and "rubbish DNA," that is, sequences that do not. Functional DNA is further subdivided into "literal DNA" and "indifferent DNA." In literal DNA, the order of nucleotides is under selection; in indifferent DNA, only the presence or absence of the sequence is under selection. Rubbish DNA is further subdivided into "junk DNA" and "garbage DNA." Junk DNA neither contributes to nor detracts from the fitness of the organism and, hence, evolves under selective neutrality. Garbage DNA, on the other hand, decreases the fitness of its carriers. Garbage DNA exists in the genome only because natural selection is neither omnipotent nor instantaneous. Each of these four functional categories can be 1) transcribed and translated, 2) transcribed but not translated, or 3) not transcribed. The affiliation of a DNA segment to a particular functional category may change during evolution: Functional DNA may become junk DNA, junk DNA may become garbage DNA, rubbish DNA may become functional DNA, and so on; however, determining the functionality or nonfunctionality of a genomic sequence must be based on its present status rather than on its potential to change (or not to change) in the future. Changes in functional affiliation are divided into pseudogenes, Lazarus DNA, zombie DNA, and Jekyll-to-Hyde DNA.
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.