Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28835561›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017

Rapid functional and evolutionary changes follow gene duplication in yeast.

Samina Naseeb, Ryan M Ames, Daniela Delneri, Simon C Lovell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Distinct chromosomal "niches" in the genome ofNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genomic Adaptation ofFrontiers in genetics · 2020
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Samina NaseebSchool of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.
Ryan M AmesSchool of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.
Daniela DelneriSchool of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK d.delneri@manchester.ac.uk.
Simon C LovellSchool of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK simon.lovell@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4092-8458
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Duplication of genes or genomes provides the raw material for evolutionary innovation. After duplication a gene may be lost, recombine with another gene, have its function modified or be retained in an unaltered state. The fate of duplication is usually studied by comparing extant genomes and reconstructing the most likely ancestral states. Valuable as this approach is, it may miss the most rapid evolutionary events. Here, we engineered strains of

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGene DuplicationGenetic FitnessGenome, FungalMicroorganisms, Genetically-ModifiedSaccharomyces cerevisiaeTranscriptomeevolutionfunctional innovationgene duplicationgene expression

Identifiers

PMID28835561
PMCPMC5577496
OpenAlexW2741149709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.