Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27087500›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2016

Evolution by gene loss.

Ricard Albalat, Cristian Cañestro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 426 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
426citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Fish MDA5 Integrates Canonical RIG-I and MDA5 Ligand Recognition.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. The Origin and Early Evolution of Fungi: Challenges, Inferences, and Principles.Annual review of cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Evolutionary dynamics of the arthropod molting machinery.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The genetic foundations of convergent traits.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

366 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.

Ricard AlbalatDepartament de Genètica, Microbiologia i Estadística and Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Av. Diagonal 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Cristian CañestroDepartament de Genètica, Microbiologia i Estadística and Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio), Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Av. Diagonal 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity. This novel perspective of gene loss is raising new fundamental questions. How relevant has gene loss been in the divergence of phyla? How do genes change from being essential to dispensable and finally to being lost? Is gene loss mostly neutral, or can it be an effective way of adaptation? These questions are addressed, and insights are discussed from genomic studies of gene loss in populations and their relevance in evolutionary biology and biomedicine.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetics, PopulationAnimalsGenetic VariationGenomicsHumansPhenotypeSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID27087500

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.