ReviewTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2026
The gene revisited: historical foundations and postgenomic complexity.
Review in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gene has remained a central organizing concept in biology for more than a century, yet its definition has become increasingly difficult to reconcile with contemporary molecular and genomic evidence. This article combines a historical review with a conceptual perspective to examine the evolution of the gene concept from Mendelian heredity to postgenomic biology. Early gene concepts assumed discreteness and stable relationships between genes and traits. These assumptions were highly productive but became inadequate as gene regulation, RNA processing, epigenetic modification, and long-range genomic interactions were discovered. Rather than converging on a refined definition, biological research progressively expanded the range of phenomena that gene concepts were required to accommodate. By synthesizing key developments across classical genetics, molecular biology, and genomics, this review explains why defining the gene has become empirically challenging while the gene itself remains indispensable in biological practice. On this basis, a pragmatic working definition of the gene is proposed that is grounded in DNA sequence and reproducible transcriptional output under regulatory control, while remaining compatible with contemporary genomic research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42251240What 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.