Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42251240›Full record

ReviewTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2026

The gene revisited: historical foundations and postgenomic complexity.

Megha Rani Maji, Prashant Shukla

Abstract readReviewHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Megha Rani MajiDepartment of Biotechnology, Brainware University, Barasat, West Bengal, 700125, India.
Prashant ShuklaDepartment of Biotechnology, Brainware University, Barasat, West Bengal, 700125, India. dps.bt@brainwareuniversity.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GenesGenomicsAnimalsEpigenesis, GeneticEvolution, MolecularGene Expression RegulationHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansModels, GeneticMolecular BiologyRNA, UntranslatedSystems BiologyRNA, UntranslatedGene conceptGene regulationGenomicsMolecular geneticsNon-coding RNASystems biology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.