ArticlePloS one2018
A phylogenomic study quantifies competing mechanisms for pseudogenization in prokaryotes-The Mycobacterium leprae case.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Loss to gain: pseudogenes in microorganisms, focusing on eubacteria, and their biological significance.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Current Methods for Recombination Detection in Bacteria.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- A New Phylogenomic Approach For Quantifying Horizontal Gene Transfer Trends in Prokaryotes.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPseudogenes are non-functional sequences in the genome with homologous sequences that are functional (i.e. genes). They are abundant in eukaryotes where they have been extensively investigated, while in prokaryotes they are significantly scarcer and less well studied. Here we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of orthologs of Mycobacterium leprae pseudogenes in prokaryotes. The leprosy pathogen M. leprae is of particular interest since it contains an unusually large number of pseudogenes, comprising approximately 40% of its entire genome. The analysis is conducted in both broad and narrow phylogenetic ranges.
resultsWe have developed an informatics-based approach to characterize the evolution of pseudogenes. This approach combines tools from phylogenomics, genomics, and transcriptomics. The results we obtain are used to assess the contributions of two mechanisms for pseudogene formation: failed horizontal gene transfer events and disruption of native genes.
conclusionsWe conclude that, although it was reported that in most bacteria the former is most likely responsible for the majority of pseudogenization events, in mycobacteria, and in particular in M. leprae with its exceptionally high pseudogene numbers, the latter predominates. We believe that our study sheds new light on the evolution of pseudogenes in bacteria, by utilizing new methodologies that are applied to the unusually abundant M. leprae pseudogenes and their orthologs.
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.