Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35018456›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2022

Evidence from Drosophila Supports Higher Duplicability of Faster Evolving Genes.

Zoe Vance, Lukasz Niezabitowski, Laurence D Hurst, Aoife McLysaght

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Orphan genes are not a distinct biological entity.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Zoe VanceSmurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Lukasz NiezabitowskiSmurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Laurence D HurstDepartment of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1002-1054
Aoife McLysaghtSmurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2552-6220

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The faster rate of evolution of duplicated genes relative to singletons has been well documented in multiple lineages. This observation has generally been attributed to a presumed release from constraint following creation of a redundant, duplicate copy. However, it is not obvious that the relationship operates in this direction. An alternative possibility-that the faster rate of evolution predates the duplication event and the observed differences result from a higher propensity to duplicate in fast-evolving genes-has been tested in primates and in insects. However, these studies arrived at different conclusions and clarity is needed on whether these contrasting results relate to differences in methodology or legitimate biological differences between the lineages selected. Here, we test whether duplicable genes are faster evolving independent of duplication in the Drosophila lineage and find that our results support the conclusion that faster evolving genes are more likely to duplicate, in agreement with previous work in primates. Our findings indicate that this characteristic of gene duplication is not restricted to a single lineage and has broad implications for the interpretation of the impact of gene duplication. We identify a subset of "singletons" which defy the general trends and appear to be faster evolving. Further investigation implicates homology detection failure and suggests that these may be duplicable genes with unidentifiable paralogs.

Indexed as

DrosophilaEvolution, MolecularAnimalsGene DuplicationGenes, DuplicatePrimatesDrosophiladuplicabilityevolutionary ratesgene duplication

Identifiers

PMID35018456
PMCPMC8765793

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.