ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Genomic organization underlying deletional robustness in bacterial metabolic systems.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. 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.
- HyperdCas12a-based multiplexed genetic regulation in Candida albicans.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Idiosyncratic Purifying Selection on Metabolic Enzymes in the Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Experimental demonstration of operon formation catalyzed by insertion sequence.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Bacterial genome reductions: Tools, applications, and challenges.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Review
- Genic Selection Within Prokaryotic Pangenomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Review
- Gene Transfer Agents in Symbiotic Microbes.Results and problems in cell differentiation · 2020Review
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale DNA deletions and gene loss are pervasive in bacterial genomes. This observation raises the possibility that evolutionary adaptation has altered bacterial genome organization to increase its robustness to large-scale tandem gene deletions. To find out, we systematically analyzed 55 bacterial genome-scale metabolisms and showed that metabolic gene ordering renders an organism's viability in multiple nutrient environments significantly more robust against tandem multigene deletions than expected by chance. This excess robustness is caused by multiple factors, which include the clustering of essential metabolic genes, a greater-than-expected distance of synthetically lethal metabolic gene pairs, and the clustering of nonessential metabolic genes. By computationally creating minimal genomes, we show that a nonadaptive origin of such clustering could in principle arise as a passive byproduct of bacterial genome growth. However, because genome randomization forces such as translocation and inversion would eventually erode such clustering, adaptive processes are necessary to sustain it. We provide evidence suggesting that this organization might result from adaptation to ongoing gene deletions, and from selective advantages associated with coregulating functionally related genes. Horizontal gene transfer in the presence of gene deletions contributes to sustaining the clustering of essential genes. In sum, our observations suggest that the genome organization of bacteria is driven by adaptive processes that provide phenotypic robustness in response to large-scale gene deletions. This robustness may be especially important for bacterial populations that take advantage of gene loss to adapt to new environments.
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.