ReviewSeminars in cell & developmental biology2019
Decanalizing thinking on genetic canalization.
Review in Seminars in cell & developmental biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Function-specific epistasis shapes evolutionary trajectories towards antibiotic resistance.Nature communications · 2026Article
- OutbredbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Environment-by-Environment Interactions Differ Across Genetic Backgrounds.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Mutational robustness and the role of buffer genes in evolvability.The EMBO journal · 2024Review
- Tracing genetic diversity captures the molecular basis of misfolding disease.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The Architecture of Metabolic Networks Constrains the Evolution of Microbial Resource Hierarchies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Challenges and potential solutions for studying the genetic and phenotypic architecture of adaptation in microbes.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2022Review
- Canalization of the Polygenic Risk for Common Diseases and Traits in the UK Biobank Cohort.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Constructive Neutral Evolution 20 Years Later.Journal of molecular evolution · 2021Review
- A model of developmental canalization, applied to human cranial form.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Exploring the Causality Between Hypothyroidism and Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
- Genotype by environment interaction for gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Genetic buffering and potentiation in metabolism.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Distinct metabolic states of a cell guide alternate fates of mutational buffering through altered proteostasis.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Genomic Variation, Evolvability, and the Paradox of Mental Illness.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- The developmental-genetics of canalization.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2019Review
- Article
- Mouse Skull Mean Shape and Shape Robustness Rely on Different Genetic Architectures and Different Loci.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Chaperones, Canalization, and Evolution of Animal Forms.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The concept of genetic canalization has had an abiding influence on views of complex-trait evolution. A genetically canalized system has evolved to become less sensitive to the effects of mutation. When a gene product that supports canalization is compromised, the phenotypic impacts of a mutation should be more pronounced. This expected increase in mutational effects not only has important consequences for evolution, but has also motivated strategies to treat disease. However, recent studies demonstrate that, when putative agents of genetic canalization are impaired, systems do not behave as expected. Here, we review the evidence that is used to infer whether particular gene products are agents of genetic canalization. Then we explain how such inferences often succumb to a converse error. We go on to show that several candidate agents of genetic canalization increase the phenotypic impacts of some mutations while decreasing the phenotypic impacts of others. These observations suggest that whether a gene product acts as a 'buffer' (lessening mutational effects) or a 'potentiator' (increasing mutational effects) is not a fixed property of the gene product but instead differs for the different mutations with which it interacts. To investigate features of genetic interactions that might predispose them toward buffering versus potentiation, we explore simulated gene-regulatory networks. Similarly to putative agents of genetic canalization, the gene products in simulated networks also modify the phenotypic effects of mutations in other genes without a strong overall tendency towards lessening or increasing these effects. In sum, these observations call into question whether complex traits have evolved to become less sensitive (i.e., are canalized) to genetic change, and the degree to which trends exist that predict how one genetic change might alter another's impact. We conclude by discussing approaches to address these and other open questions that are brought into focus by re-thinking genetic canalization.
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.