Cited by 353Marine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation

EST Analysis of the Cnidarian Acropora millepora Reveals Extensive Gene Loss and Rapid Sequence Divergence in the Model Invertebrates

Open access
Kortschak, R.Daniel, Samuel, Gabrielle, Saint, Robert, Miller, David J·2003·Current Biology

Abstract

A significant proportion of mammalian genes are not represented in the genomes of Drosophila, Caenorhabditis or Saccharomyces, and many of these are assumed to have been vertebrate innovations. To test this assumption, we conducted a preliminary EST project on the anthozoan cnidarian, Acropora millepora, a basal metazoan. More than 10% of the Acropora ESTs with strong metazoan matches to the databases had clear human homologs but were not represented in the Drosophila or Caenorhabditis genomes; this category includes a surprising diversity of transcription factors and metabolic proteins that were previously assumed to be restricted to vertebrates. Consistent with higher rates of divergence in the model invertebrates, three-way comparisons show that most Acropora ESTs match human sequences much more strongly than they do any Drosophila or Caenorhabditis sequence. Gene loss has thus been much more extensive in the model invertebrate lineages than previously assumed and, as a consequence, some genes formerly thought to be vertebrate inventions must have been present in the common metazoan ancestor. The complexity of the Acropora genome is paradoxical, given that this organism contains apparently few tissue types and the simplest extant nervous system consisting of a morphologically homogeneous nerve net.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2003.11.030

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 353

Authors
Kortschak, R. D., Samuel, G., Saint, R., & Miller, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • James Cook University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Saint, Robert
  • Miller, David J
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-12
Volume
13
Issue
24
Pages
2190-2195
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148461722
Cited by
353
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
29.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Genome Research Facility
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Keywords
Acropora millepora, gene loss, sequence divergence, expressed sequence tags, Cnidaria, Anthozoa, animal evolution, Drosophila, Caenorhabditis, transcription factors, metabolic proteins, genome complexity, nerve net
MeSH terms
Animals, Phylogeny, Species Specificity, Evolution, Molecular, Expressed Sequence Tags, Databases, Genetic, Anthozoa

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