ArticleBMC genomics2016
Purifying selection acts on coding and non-coding sequences of paralogous genes in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of Pathogenesis-Related Protein 1 in Sweet Potato and Its Two Relatives.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Intra-Varietal Diversity and Its Contribution to Wheat Evolution, Domestication, and Improvement in Wheat.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Genetic Conservation of CBS Domain Containing Protein Family inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Accelerated evolution at chaperone promoters among Antarctic notothenioid fishes.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Evolution and functional differentiation of recently diverged phytochelatin synthase genes from Arundo donax L.Journal of experimental botany · 2019Article
- Differential paralog divergence modulates genome evolution across yeast species.PLoS genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole-genome duplications in the ancestors of many diverse species provided the genetic material for evolutionary novelty. Several models explain the retention of paralogous genes. However, how these models are reflected in the evolution of coding and non-coding sequences of paralogous genes is unknown.
resultsHere, we analyzed the coding and non-coding sequences of paralogous genes in Arabidopsis thaliana and compared these sequences with those of orthologous genes in Arabidopsis lyrata. Paralogs with lower expression than their duplicate had more nonsynonymous substitutions, were more likely to fractionate, and exhibited less similar expression patterns with their orthologs in the other species. Also, lower-expressed genes had greater tissue specificity. Orthologous conserved non-coding sequences in the promoters, introns, and 3' untranslated regions were less abundant at lower-expressed genes compared to their higher-expressed paralogs. A gene ontology (GO) term enrichment analysis showed that paralogs with similar expression levels were enriched in GO terms related to ribosomes, whereas paralogs with different expression levels were enriched in terms associated with stress responses.
conclusionsLoss of conserved non-coding sequences in one gene of a paralogous gene pair correlates with reduced expression levels that are more tissue specific. Together with increased mutation rates in the coding sequences, this suggests that similar forces of purifying selection act on coding and non-coding sequences. We propose that coding and non-coding sequences evolve concurrently following gene duplication.
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.