ArticleBMC biology2021
Assessment of assumptions underlying models of prokaryotic pangenome evolution.
Article in BMC biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic perplexity and the evolution of context-dependent function.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- De novo origin of numerous microproteins in enterobacteria.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Gene-level analysis of core carbohydrate metabolism across the Enterobacteriaceae pan-genome.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Tackling the Pangenome Dilemma Requires the Concerted Analysis of Multiple Population Genetic Processes.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Prokaryotic Pangenomes Act as Evolving Ecosystems.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Nutrition or nature: using elementary flux modes to disentangle the complex forces shaping prokaryote pan-genomes.BMC ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- To kill or to be killed: pangenome analysis of Escherichia coli strains reveals a tailocin specific for pandemic ST131.BMC biology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe genomes of bacteria and archaea evolve by extensive loss and gain of genes which, for any group of related prokaryotic genomes, result in the formation of a pangenome with the universal, asymmetrical U-shaped distribution of gene commonality. However, the evolutionary factors that define the specific shape of this distribution are not thoroughly understood.
resultsWe investigate the fit of simple models of genome evolution to the empirically observed gene commonality distributions and genome intersections for 33 groups of closely related bacterial genomes. A model with an infinite external gene pool available for gene acquisition and constant genome size (IGP-CGS model), and two gene turnover rates, one for slow- and the other one for fast-evolving genes, allows two approaches to estimate the parameters for gene content dynamics. One is by fitting the model prediction to the distribution of the number of genes shared by precisely k genomes (gene commonality distribution) and another by analyzing the distribution of the number of genes common for k genome sets (k-cores). Both approaches produce a comparable overall quality of fit, although the former significantly overestimates the number of the universally conserved genes, while the latter overestimates the number of singletons. We further explore the effect of dropping each of the assumptions of the IGP-CGS model on the fit to the gene commonality distributions and show that models with either a finite gene pool or unequal rates of gene loss and gain (greater gene loss rate) eliminate the overestimate of the number of singletons or the core genome size.
conclusionsWe examine the assumptions that are usually adopted for modeling the evolution of the U-shaped gene commonality distributions in prokaryote genomes, namely, those of infinitely many genes and constant genome size. The combined analysis of genome intersections and gene commonality suggests that at least one of these assumptions is invalid. The violation of both these assumptions reflects the limited ability of prokaryotes to gain new genes. This limitation seems to stem, at least partly, from the horizontal gene transfer barrier, i.e., the cost of accommodation of foreign genes by prokaryotes. Further development of models taking into account the complexity of microbial evolution is necessary for an improved understanding of the evolution of prokaryotes.
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.