ReviewJournal of molecular evolution2026
Functionality versus Adaptation: Insights from Transcriptional Adaptation.
Review in Journal of molecular evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Transcriptional adaptation (TA) works through a mechanism in which ILF3 binds degradation fragments of aberrant mRNAs and upregulates a sequence-related "adapting gene" for expressional compensation. It is worth thinking whether the entire TA mechanism can be regarded as adaptive given its potential off-targeting, sensitivity to mutations, reliance on paralogous genes, and the counterproductive self-TA. Here, we ask how exactly adaptation should be defined. We need to distinguish between adaptation at the case-study level versus the global-mechanism level, possibly through the lens of drift-barrier hypothesis. A few beneficial cases cannot justify the adaptation of the entire mechanism. Using RNA editing as an example, we illustrate that many functional molecular processes may actually arise through constructive neutral evolution (CNE) and be bufferred by genetic capacitors, a scenario echoing the spandrels of San Marco and the molecular error hypothesis. The existence of such mechanisms permitted the accumulation of otherwise deleterious mutations. We propose that functionality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for adaptation. Functional cases should not be automatically extended to adaptation unless its origin and evolution have been investigated from an omics angle. Our perspectives provide insights into the origins of biological mechanisms and the nature of evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42133046What 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.