ArticlePloS one2015
Investigating different duplication pattern of essential genes in mouse and human.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights into the identification and evolutionary conservation of key genes in the transcriptional circuits of meiosis initiation and commitment in budding yeast.FEBS open bio · 2023Article
- Functional compensation of mouse duplicates by their paralogs expressed in the same tissues.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Elucidating the network features and evolutionary attributes of intra- and interspecific protein-protein interactions between human and pathogenic bacteria.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Systematic Analyses and Prediction of Human Drug Side Effect Associated Proteins from the Perspective of Protein Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Injury, inflammation and the emergence of human-specific genes.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2016Article
- Global analysis of human duplicated genes reveals the relative importance of whole-genome duplicates originated in the early vertebrate evolution.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Laminin-binding integrin gene copy number alterations in distinct epithelial-type cancers.American journal of translational research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene duplication is one of the major driving forces shaping genome and organism evolution and thought to be itself regulated by some intrinsic properties of the gene. Comparing the essential genes among mouse and human, we observed that the essential genes avoid duplication in mouse while prefer to remain duplicated in humans. In this study, we wanted to explore the reasons behind such differences in gene essentiality by cross-species comparison of human and mouse. Moreover, we examined essential genes that are duplicated in humans are functionally more redundant than that in mouse. The proportion of paralog pseudogenization of essential genes is higher in mouse than that of humans. These duplicates of essential genes are under stringent dosage regulation in human than in mouse. We also observed slower evolutionary rate in the paralogs of human essential genes than the mouse counterpart. Together, these results clearly indicate that human essential genes are retained as duplicates to serve as backed up copies that may shield themselves from harmful mutations.
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.