Cited by 99Genome Rearrangement AlgorithmsChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Reconstruction of a 450-My-old ancestral vertebrate protokaryotype

KOHN, M, HOGEL, J, VOGEL, W, MINICH, P, KEHRERSAWATZKI, H, GRAVES, J, HAMEISTER, H·2006·Trends in Genetics

Abstract

From recent work the putative eutherian karyotype from 100 Mya has been derived. Here, we have applied a new in silico technique, electronic chromosome painting (E-painting), on a large data set of genes whose positions are known in human, chicken, zebrafish and pufferfish. E-painting identifies conserved syntenies in the data set, and it enables a stepwise reconstruction of the ancestral vertebrate protokaryotype comprising 11 protochromosomes. During karyotype evolution in land vertebrates interchromosomal rearrangements by translocation are relatively frequent, whereas the karyotypes of birds and fish are much more conserved. Although the human karyotype is one of the most conserved in eutherians, it can no longer be considered highly conserved from a vertebrate-wide perspective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tig.2006.02.008

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Comparison of chromosome-scale genomes across vertebrates has clarified the timing and consequences of ancient whole-genome duplications that led to extant vertebrate genomes, supporting Ohno's hypothesis.

    “Comparison of chromosome-scale genomes across vertebrates has clarified the timing and consequences of the ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs) that led to extant vertebrate genomes (59–65), supporting Ohno's (66) hypothesis.”

    From Topological Approaches in Animal Comparative Genomics (2026) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KOHN, M., HOGEL, J., VOGEL, W., MINICH, P., KEHRERSAWATZKI, H., GRAVES, J., & HAMEISTER, H.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
HAMEISTER, H
Venue
Trends in Genetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-04
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
203-210
ISSN
0168-9525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040322208
Cited by
99
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
karyotype evolution, syntenic blocks, translocation, interchromosomal rearrangements, comparative genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Biological Evolution, Fishes, Humans, Karyotyping, Phylogeny, Time Factors, Vertebrates, Zebrafish, Chromosome Painting, Tetraodontiformes

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