The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phylogenetic Timing of the Fish-Specific Genome Duplication Correlates with the Diversification of Teleost Fish
Open accessAbstract
For many genes, ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii) have two paralogous copies, where only one ortholog is present in tetrapods. The discovery of an additional, almost-complete set of Hox clusters in teleosts (zebrafish, pufferfish, medaka, and cichlid) but not in basal actinopterygian lineages (Polypterus) led to the formulation of the fish-specific genome duplication hypothesis. The phylogenetic timing of this genome duplication during the evolution of ray-finned fish is unknown, since only a few species of basal fish lineages have been investigated so far. In this study, three nuclear genes (fzd8, sox11, tyrosinase) were sequenced from sturgeons (Acipenseriformes), gars (Semionotiformes), bony tongues (Osteoglossomorpha), and a tenpounder (Elopomorpha). For these three genes, two copies have been described previously teleosts (e.g., zebrafish, pufferfish), but only one orthologous copy is found in tetrapods. Individual gene trees for these three genes and a concatenated dataset support the hypothesis that the fish-specific genome duplication event took place after the split of the Acipenseriformes and the Semionotiformes from the lineage leading to teleost fish but before the divergence of Osteoglossiformes. If these three genes were duplicated during the proposed fish-specific genome duplication event, then this event separates the species-poor early-branching lineages from the species-rich teleost lineage. The additional number of genes resulting from this event might have facilitated the evolutionary radiation and the phenotypic diversification of the teleost fish.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multiple Comparisons of Log-Likelihoods with Applications to Phylogenetic Inference
Shimodaira, H., & Hasegawa, M. (1999) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026201 · Cited by 4,237
A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Kumar, S., & Hedges, S. B. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/31927 · Cited by 1,936
Nei, M., Xu, P., & Glazko, G. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.051611498 · Cited by 329
Cited by
The evolutionary significance of ancient genome duplications
Van de Peer, Y., Maere, S., & Meyer, A. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2600 · Cited by 1,129
Self-citationFrom 2R to 3R: evidence for a fish-specific genome duplication (FSGD)
Meyer, A., & Van de Peer, Y. (2005) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.20293 · Cited by 945
Self-citationRobertson, F. M., Gundappa, M. K., Grammes, F., Hvidsten, T. R., Redmond, A. K., Lien, S., Martin, S. A. M., Holland, P. W. H., Sandve, S. R., & Macqueen, D. J. (2017) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1241-z · Cited by 212
McMenamin, S. K., & Parichy, D. M. (2013) · Current Topics in Developmental Biology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385979-2.00005-8 · Cited by 211
Hahn, M. E., Karchner, S. I., Evans, B. R., Franks, D. G., Merson, R. R., & Lapseritis, J. M. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Comparative Experimental Biology · doi:10.1002/jez.a.323 · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoegg, S., Brinkmann, H., Taylor, J. S., & Meyer, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Molecular Evolution
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 190-203
- ISSN
- 0022-2844 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1432
- OpenAlex
- W2168107590
- Cited by
- 583
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 35.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.