Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27994121›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017

New genes from old: asymmetric divergence of gene duplicates and the evolution of development.

Peter W H Holland, Ferdinand Marlétaz, Ignacio Maeso, Thomas L Dunwell, Jordi Paps

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. TED1 Promotes the Assembly of SCFAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Case Report: Compound heterozygous variants inFrontiers in pediatrics · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Peter W H HollandDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK peter.holland@zoo.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1533-9376
Ferdinand MarlétazDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
Ignacio MaesoDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
Thomas L DunwellDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
Jordi PapsDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
University of Oxford · GBConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University · JPUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

European Research Council 268513
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene duplications and gene losses have been frequent events in the evolution of animal genomes, with the balance between these two dynamic processes contributing to major differences in gene number between species. After gene duplication, it is common for both daughter genes to accumulate sequence change at approximately equal rates. In some cases, however, the accumulation of sequence change is highly uneven with one copy radically diverging from its paralogue. Such 'asymmetric evolution' seems commoner after tandem gene duplication than after whole-genome duplication, and can generate substantially novel genes. We describe examples of asymmetric evolution in duplicated homeobox genes of moths, molluscs and mammals, in each case generating new homeobox genes that were recruited to novel developmental roles. The prevalence of asymmetric divergence of gene duplicates has been underappreciated, in part, because the origin of highly divergent genes can be difficult to resolve using standard phylogenetic methods.This article is part of the themed issue 'Evo-devo in the genomics era, and the origins of morphological diversity'.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGenes, DuplicateGenes, HomeoboxGrowth and DevelopmentAnimalsEvolution, Moleculargenome duplicationhomeoboxLepidopteraMammaliaMolluscatandem duplication

Identifiers

PMID27994121
PMCPMC5182412
OpenAlexW2561817635

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.