Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38097959›Full record

ArticleBMC ecology and evolution2023

Expectations of duplicate gene retention under the gene duplicability hypothesis.

Amanda E Wilson, David A Liberles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ecology 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Paralogs of thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  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.

Amanda E WilsonDepartment of Biology and Center for Computational Genetics and Genomics, Temple University, 1900 N. 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA.
David A LiberlesDepartment of Biology and Center for Computational Genetics and Genomics, Temple University, 1900 N. 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. daliberles@temple.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGene duplication is an important process in evolution. What causes some genes to be retained after duplication and others to be lost is a process not well understood. The most prevalent theory is the gene duplicability hypothesis, that something about the function and number of interacting partners (number of subunits of protein complex, etc.), determines whether copies have more opportunity to be retained for long evolutionary periods. Some genes are also more susceptible to dosage balance effects following WGD events, making them more likely to be retained for longer periods of time. One would expect these processes that affect the retention of duplicate copies to affect the conditional probability ratio after consecutive whole genome duplication events. The probability that a gene will be retained after a second whole genome duplication event (WGD2), given that it was retained after the first whole genome duplication event (WGD1) versus the probability a gene will be retained after WGD2, given it was lost after WGD1 defines the probability ratio that is calculated.

resultsSince duplicate gene retention is a time heterogeneous process, the time between the events (t1) and the time since the most recent event (t2) are relevant factors in calculating the expectation for observation in any genome. Here, we use a survival analysis framework to predict the probability ratio for genomes with different values of t1 and t2 under the gene duplicability hypothesis, that some genes are more susceptible to selectable functional shifts, some more susceptible to dosage compensation, and others only drifting. We also predict the probability ratio with different values of t1 and t2 under the mutational opportunity hypothesis, that probability of retention for certain genes changes in subsequent events depending upon how they were previously retained. These models are nested such that the mutational opportunity model encompasses the gene duplicability model with shifting duplicability over time. Here we present a formalization of the gene duplicability and mutational opportunity hypotheses to characterize evolutionary dynamics and explanatory power in a recently developed statistical framework.

conclusionsThis work presents expectations of the gene duplicability and mutational opportunity hypotheses over time under different sets of assumptions. This expectation will enable formal testing of processes leading to duplicate gene retention.

Indexed as

Genes, DuplicateMotivationGene DuplicationGenomeComparative genomicsGene duplicationMolecular evolutionMutational opportunityPolyploidyProbabilistic modeling

Identifiers

PMID38097959
PMCPMC10720195

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.