ArticleeLife2022
Evolution of binding preferences among whole-genome duplicated transcription factors.
Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- AUXIN RESPONSE FACTORs: from transcription factors to auxin effectors.The New phytologist · 2026Review
- SIRT1 Exon 2-Encoded IDR Gates CREB-Dependent Transcriptional Timing During Fasting.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Article
- Evolutionary causes and consequences of gene duplication.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Spatially resolved profiling of steroid nuclear receptors reveals a role for the disordered N-terminal domains in genome targeting and AP-1 interaction.Genome research · 2026Article
- Unstructured transcription factor interactions enable emergent specificity.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Nonredundant roles for paralogous proteins in the yeast glucose-sensing pathway.Molecular biology of the cell · 2026Article
- Evolutionary Transitions in Social Behavior are Associated With Convergent and Partially Reversible Expansions of Transcription Factor Binding Sites.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Loss of PDR3 alters metabolome in response to MCHM, a synthetic hydrotrope.Current genetics · 2025Article
- SPEECHLESS duplication in grasses expands potential for environmental regulation of stomatal development.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Non-redundant roles for paralogous proteins in the yeast glucose-sensing pathway.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Mechanisms driving functional divergence of transcription factor paralogs.The New phytologist · 2025Review
- Short activation domains control chromatin association of transcription factors.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Single-cell imaging of protein dynamics of paralogs reveals sources of gene retention.iScience · 2025Article
- Intrinsically disordered regions as facilitators of the transcription factor target search.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025Review
- Versatile roles of disordered transcription factor effector domains in transcriptional regulation.The FEBS journal · 2025Review
- Many transcription factor families have evolutionarily conserved binding motifs in plants.Plant physiology · 2025Article
- Collective unstructured interactions drive chromatin binding of transcription factors.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A GATA factor radiation inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Throughout evolution, new transcription factors (TFs) emerge by gene duplication, promoting growth and rewiring of transcriptional networks. How TF duplicates diverge was studied in a few cases only. To provide a genome-scale view, we considered the set of budding yeast TFs classified as whole-genome duplication (WGD)-retained paralogs (~35% of all specific TFs). Using high-resolution profiling, we find that ~60% of paralogs evolved differential binding preferences. We show that this divergence results primarily from variations outside the DNA-binding domains (DBDs), while DBD preferences remain largely conserved. Analysis of non-WGD orthologs revealed uneven splitting of ancestral preferences between duplicates, and the preferential acquiring of new targets by the least conserved paralog (biased neo/sub-functionalization). Interactions between paralogs were rare, and, when present, occurred through weak competition for DNA-binding or dependency between dimer-forming paralogs. We discuss the implications of our findings for the evolutionary design of transcriptional networks.
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.