ArticleGenome biology and evolution2022
Functional compensation of mouse duplicates by their paralogs expressed in the same tissues.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adult-onset hippocampal α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor loss rapidly drives Alzheimer-like neuropathology in mice.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Consuming your colors: carotenoid and retinol availability affects expression of color related genes in the mimic poison frog (Ranitomeya imitator).BMC genomics · 2025Article
- A comprehensive analysis of Atlantic salmon gonad and pituitary transcriptomes identifies novel players in sexual maturation.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Organismal complexity strongly correlates with the number of protein families and domains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Functional genomics in inborn errors of immunity.Immunological reviews · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analyses in a number of organisms have shown that duplicated genes are less likely to be essential than singletons. This implies that genes can often compensate for the loss of their paralogs. However, it is unclear why the loss of some duplicates can be compensated by their paralogs, whereas the loss of other duplicates cannot. Surprisingly, initial analyses in mice did not detect differences in the essentiality of duplicates and singletons. Only subsequent analyses, using larger gene knockout datasets and controlling for a number of confounding factors, did detect significant differences. Previous studies have not taken into account the tissues in which duplicates are expressed. We hypothesized that in complex organisms, in order for a gene's loss to be compensated by one or more of its paralogs, such paralogs need to be expressed in at least the same set of tissues as the lost gene. To test our hypothesis, we classified mouse duplicates into two categories based on the expression patterns of their paralogs: "compensable duplicates" (those with paralogs expressed in all the tissues in which the gene is expressed) and "non-compensable duplicates" (those whose paralogs are not expressed in all the tissues where the gene is expressed). In agreement with our hypothesis, the essentiality of non-compensable duplicates is similar to that of singletons, whereas compensable duplicates exhibit a substantially lower essentiality. Our results imply that duplicates can often compensate for the loss of their paralogs, but only if they are expressed in the same tissues. Indeed, the compensation ability is more dependent on expression patterns than on protein sequence similarity. The existence of these two kinds of duplicates with different essentialities, which has been overlooked by prior studies, may have hindered the detection of differences between singletons and duplicates.
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.