Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25646380›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2015

Mechanisms of gene duplication and amplification.

Andrew B Reams, John R Roth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. On the Origin of Biomolecular Networks.Frontiers in genetics · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Current aging science · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Andrew B ReamsDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, California 95819-6077.
John R RothDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Davis, California 95616.

Funding

GENETIC ANALYSIS OF BACTERIAL CHROMSOME STRUCTURER01GM027068 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ROTH, JOHN R · 1985 to 2018
$8.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM27068NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM027068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Changes in gene copy number are among the most frequent mutational events in all genomes and were among the mutations for which a physical basis was first known. Yet mechanisms of gene duplication remain uncertain because formation rates are difficult to measure and mechanisms may vary with position in a genome. Duplications are compared here to deletions, which seem formally similar but can arise at very different rates by distinct mechanisms. Methods of assessing duplication rates and dependencies are described with several proposed formation mechanisms. Emphasis is placed on duplications formed in extensively studied experimental situations. Duplications studied in microbes are compared with those observed in metazoan cells, specifically those in genomes of cancer cells. Duplications, and especially their derived amplifications, are suggested to form by multistep processes often under positive selection for increased copy number.

Indexed as

Gene AmplificationGene DuplicationModels, GeneticDNADNA Transposable ElementsGene DeletionGene DosageGenes, BacterialInverted Repeat SequencesMutation RatePlasmidsDNADNA Transposable Elements

Identifiers

PMID25646380
PMCPMC4315931

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.