Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29844985›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

Divergent and convergent evolution of housekeeping genes in human-pig lineage.

Kai Wei, Tingting Zhang, Lei Ma

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Blastocyst complementation and interspecies chimeras in gene edited pigs.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kai Wei *College of Life Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang, China.
Tingting Zhang *College of Life Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang, China.
Lei MaCollege of Life Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang, China.
Shihezi University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Housekeeping genes are ubiquitously expressed and maintain basic cellular functions across tissue/cell type conditions. The present study aimed to develop a set of pig housekeeping genes and compare the structure, evolution and function of housekeeping genes in the human-pig lineage. By using RNA sequencing data, we identified 3,136 pig housekeeping genes. Compared with human housekeeping genes, we found that pig housekeeping genes were longer and subjected to slightly weaker purifying selection pressure and faster neutral evolution. Common housekeeping genes, shared by the two species, achieve stronger purifying selection than species-specific genes. However, pig- and human-specific housekeeping genes have similar functions. Some species-specific housekeeping genes have evolved independently to form similar protein active sites or structure, such as the classical catalytic serine-histidine-aspartate triad, implying that they have converged for maintaining the basic cellular function, which allows them to adapt to the environment. Human and pig housekeeping genes have varied structures and gene lists, but they have converged to maintain basic cellular functions essential for the existence of a cell, regardless of its specific role in the species. The results of our study shed light on the evolutionary dynamics of housekeeping genes.

Indexed as

Basal cellular functionConvergent evolutionGene structureHousekeeping genesHuman–pig lineage

Identifiers

PMID29844985
PMCPMC5971102
OpenAlexW2772773964

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.