Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30107779›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Synchronous birth is a dominant pattern in receptor-ligand evolution.

Anna Grandchamp, Philippe Monget

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna GrandchampPRC, UMR85, INRA, CNRS, IFCE, Université de Tours, F-37380, Nouzilly, France. anna.grandchamp@inra.fr.
Philippe MongetPRC, UMR85, INRA, CNRS, IFCE, Université de Tours, F-37380, Nouzilly, France. philippe.monget@inra.fr.
Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInteractions between proteins are key components in the chemical and physical processes of living organisms. Among these interactions, membrane receptors and their ligands are particularly important because they are at the interface between extracellular and intracellular environments. Many studies have investigated how binding partners have co-evolved in genomes during the evolution. However, little is known about the establishment of the interaction on a phylogenetic scale. In this study, we systematically studied the time of birth of genes encoding human membrane receptors and their ligands in the animal tree of life. We examined a total of 553 pairs of ligands/receptors, representing non-redundant interactions.

resultsWe found that 41% of the receptors and their respective first ligands appeared in the same branch, representing 2.5-fold more than expected by chance, thus suggesting an evolutionary dynamic of interdependence and conservation between these partners. In contrast, 21% of the receptors appeared after their ligand, i.e. three-fold less often than expected by chance. Most surprisingly, 38% of the receptors appeared before their first ligand, as much as expected by chance.

conclusionsAccording to these results, we propose that a selective pressure is exerted on ligands and receptors once they appear, that would remove molecules whose partner does not appear quickly.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAnimalsHumansLigandsModels, BiologicalPhylogenyProtein BindingReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearLigandsReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearCo-appearanceLigandPhylogenyReceptor

Identifiers

PMID30107779
PMCPMC6092800
OpenAlexW2886776362

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.