Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8536970›Full record

ArticleGenetics1995

Molecular evolution of the duplicated Amy locus in the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup: concerted evolution only in the coding region and an excess of nonsynonymous substitutions in speciation.

H Shibata, T Yamazaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Amyrel, a paralogous gene of the amylase gene family in Drosophila melanogaster and the Sophophora subgenus.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 1998
    Article
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.

H ShibataDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
T Yamazaki

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From the analysis of restriction maps of the Amy region in eight sibling species belonging to the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup, we herein show that the patterns of duplication of the Amy gene are almost the same in all species. This indicates that duplication occurred before speciation within this species subgroup. From the nucleotide sequence data, we show a strong within-species similarity between the duplicated loci in the Amy coding region. This is in contrast to a strong similarity in the 5' and 3' flanking regions within each locus (proximal or distal) throughout the species subgroup. This means that concerted evolution occurred only in the Amy coding region and that differentiated evolution between the duplication occurred in the flanking regions. Moreover, when comparing the species, we also found a significant excess of nonsynonymous substitutions. In particular, all the fixed substitutions specific to D. erecta were found to be nonsynonymous. We thus conclude that adaptive protein evolution occurred in the lineage of D. erecta that is a "specialist" species for host plants and probably also occurs in the process of speciation in general.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAmino Acid SequenceAmylasesAnimalsBase SequenceChi-Square DistributionDNA, ComplementaryDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterFemaleGenes, InsectMolecular Sequence DataMultigene FamilyPhylogenyRestriction MappingAmylasesDNA, Complementary

Identifiers

PMID8536970
PMCPMC1206720

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.