Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37776514›Full record

ArticleGenome biology and evolution2023

Ohnologs and SSD Paralogs Differ in Genomic and Expression Features Related to Dosage Constraints.

Zoe Vance, Aoife McLysaght

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Autophagy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zoe VanceSmurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Aoife McLysaghtSmurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2552-6220
Trinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene duplication is recognized as a critical process in genome evolution; however, many questions about this process remain unanswered. Although gene duplicability has been observed to differ by duplication mechanism and evolutionary rate, there is so far no broad characterization of its determinants. Many features correlate with this difference in duplicability; however, our ability to exploit these observations to advance our understanding of the role of duplication in evolution is hampered by limitations within existing work. In particular, the existence of methodological differences across studies impedes meaningful comparison. Here, we use consistent definitions of duplicability in the human lineage to explore these associations, allow resolution of the impact of confounding factors, and define the overall relevance of individual features. Using a classifier approach and controlling for the confounding effect of duplicate longevity, we find a subset of gene features important in differentiating genes duplicable by small-scale duplication from those duplicable by whole-genome duplication, revealing critical roles for gene dosage and expression costs in duplicability. We further delve into patterns of functional enrichment and find a lack of constraint on duplicate retention in any context for genes duplicable by small-scale duplication.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenomeGene DosageGene DuplicationGenomicsHumansduplicabilitygene duplicationwhole-genome duplication

Identifiers

PMID37776514
PMCPMC10563793
OpenAlexW4387209013

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.