ArticleBMC biology2026
Chromosomal rearrangements and segmental deletions contribute to gene loss in squamates.
Article in BMC biology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic rearrangements, including segmental deletions, duplications, translocations, and inversions of DNA segments, can contribute to gene losses, thereby reshaping genome architecture and potentially resulting in functional consequences. In squamates, karyotypic evolution mainly involves chromosome number reduction through fusions and microchromosome to macrochromosome translocations, although fissions have also contributed to diversification in several lineages. Despite these dynamics, the evolutionary processes and underlying genetic mechanisms driving chromosomal rearrangements and associated gene losses in squamates remain poorly understood.
resultsIn this study, we analysed chromosome/scaffold-level assemblies of 261 squamates, corroborated by short-read, long-read, and transcriptomic data. We found multiple lines of evidence for the putative loss of 53 genes in the squamate lineage. Synteny and phylogenetic analysis revealed that, among the 53 unretrieved orthologs, 14 are lost in squamates with no retained paralog, 15 show ortholog loss with retained paralogs, and 24 remain as unretrieved orthologs. Furthermore, we find that many of the genes lost from squamates are organised in syntenic clusters and are involved in essential immune functions-raising important questions about the role of paralogs in compensating for the function of lost genes, strengthening the 'less-is-more' hypothesis in the squamate lineage.
conclusionsTogether, our comparative genomic analyses highlight that the loss of crucial genes in squamate lineages has occurred primarily through inter- and intrachromosomal rearrangements, including segmental deletions. These findings offer insights into the evolutionary loss of genes involved in macrophage differentiation and inform the development of novel pharmaceutical approaches for modulating immune responses.
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.