ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Random, fragile, or correlated: Mechanisms of synteny decay in mammals.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We formalize three models of genome evolution, yielding analytical distributions of synteny block sizes between pairs of genomes. To evaluate each model, we fit theoretical synteny block size distributions to empirical distributions from a comparative analysis of nearly 200 mammalian genomes. Between the random breakage model (RBM), with uniformly distributed breakpoints, the fragile breakage model (FBM) with breakpoint hotspots, and what we term the correlated breakage model (CBM) with pairs of nearby breakpoints, we find that the FBM and CBM are far more consistent with mammalian genome evolution than the RBM. Inferred parameters of each model qualitatively agree with previous characterizations of mammalian genome evolution. The FBM and CBM perform comparably with each other, suggesting that either model could serve as an improved null model of genome evolution to use in statistical tests for syntenic regions that are unlikely to exist due to random chance.
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.