Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40908493›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2025

Evolutionary diversification of ancestral genes across vertebrates and insects.

Federica Mantica, Manuel Irimia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Federica ManticaDepartment of Medicine and Life Sciences (MELIS), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. federica.mantica@upf.edu.
Manuel IrimiaDepartment of Medicine and Life Sciences (MELIS), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. mirimia@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVertebrates and insects diverged approximately 700 million years ago, and yet they retain a large core of conserved genes from their last common ancestor. These ancient genes present strong evolutionary constraints, which limit their overall sequence and expression divergence. However, these constraints can greatly vary across ancestral gene families and, in at least some cases, sequence and expression changes can have functional consequences. Importantly, overall patterns of sequence and expression divergence and their potential functional outcomes have never been explored in a genome-wide manner across large animal evolutionary distances.

resultsWe focus on approximately 7000 highly conserved genes shared between vertebrates and insects, and we investigate global patterns of molecular diversification driven by changes in sequence and gene expression. We identify molecular features generally linked to higher or lower diversification rates, together with gene groups with similar diversification profiles in both clades. Moreover, we discover that specific sets of genes underwent differential diversification during vertebrate and insect evolution, potentially contributing to the emergence of unique phenotypes in each clade.

conclusionsWe generate a comprehensive dataset of measures of sequence and expression divergence across vertebrates and insects, which reveals a continuous spectrum of evolutionary constraints among highly conserved genes. These constraints are normally consistent between these two clades and are associated with specific molecular features, but in some cases we also identify instances of lineage-specific diversification likely linked to functional evolution.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularInsectaVertebratesAnimalsConserved SequenceGenetic VariationPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID40908493
PMCPMC12412249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.