ReviewHuman genomics2022
Placing human gene families into their evolutionary context.
Review in Human genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Hydrogen Sulfide (HInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- DetectNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Evolutionary study of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in breast carcinoma.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Update of the Methyltransferase Gene Family: Classification, Evolution and Biological Functions.Human genomics · 2026Review
- GeneFamily: a comprehensive mammalian gene family database with extensive annotation and interactive visualization.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Gene choice in cancer cells is exclusive in ion transport but concurrent in DNA replication.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Ancient fish lineages illuminate toll-like receptor diversification in early vertebrate evolution.Immunogenetics · 2023Article
- Real or fake? Measuring the impact of protein annotation errors on estimates of domain gain and loss events.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Following the draft sequence of the first human genome over 20 years ago, we have achieved unprecedented insights into the rules governing its evolution, often with direct translational relevance to specific diseases. However, staggering sequence complexity has also challenged the development of a more comprehensive understanding of human genome biology. In this context, interspecific genomic studies between humans and other animals have played a critical role in our efforts to decode human gene families. In this review, we focus on how the rapid surge of genome sequencing of both model and non-model organisms now provides a broader comparative framework poised to empower novel discoveries. We begin with a general overview of how comparative approaches are essential for understanding gene family evolution in the human genome, followed by a discussion of analyses of gene expression. We show how homology can provide insights into the genes and gene families associated with immune response, cancer biology, vision, chemosensation, and metabolism, by revealing similarity in processes among distant species. We then explain methodological tools that provide critical advances and show the limitations of common approaches. We conclude with a discussion of how these investigations position us to gain fundamental insights into the evolution of gene families among living organisms in general. We hope that our review catalyzes additional excitement and research on the emerging field of comparative genomics, while aiding the placement of the human genome into its existentially evolutionary context.
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.