Cited by 1,108Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic VariationsEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals

Open access
Broad Institute Sequencing Platform and Whole Genome Assembly Team, Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin, Baylor College of Medicine Human Genome Sequencing Center Sequencing Team, Genome Institute at Washington University, Garber, Manuel, Zuk, Or, Lin, Michael F., Parker, Brian J. +55 more·2011·Nature

Abstract

The comparison of related genomes has emerged as a powerful lens for genome interpretation. Here we report the sequencing and comparative analysis of 29 eutherian genomes. We confirm that at least 5.5% of the human genome has undergone purifying selection, and locate constrained elements covering ∼4.2% of the genome. We use evolutionary signatures and comparisons with experimental data sets to suggest candidate functions for ∼60% of constrained bases. These elements reveal a small number of new coding exons, candidate stop codon readthrough events and over 10,000 regions of overlapping synonymous constraint within protein-coding exons. We find 220 candidate RNA structural families, and nearly a million elements overlapping potential promoter, enhancer and insulator regions. We report specific amino acid residues that have undergone positive selection, 280,000 non-coding elements exapted from mobile elements and more than 1,000 primate- and human-accelerated elements. Overlap with disease-associated variants indicates that our findings will be relevant for studies of human biology, health and disease. This comparative genomics study, comparing the complete human genome sequence with those of 29 placental mammals, including chimpanzees, mice and dogs, identifies 4.2% of the human genome as constrained by evolutionary selection, and ascribes a potential function to about 60% of these constrained bases. A series of evolutionary signatures emerges, providing insights into coding and non-coding functional genomic elements, candidate RNA structural families and aspects of genome organization and evolution. Overlap with disease-associated variants indicates that the findings will be relevant for studies of human disease.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature10530

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Not all distal conserved elements are detectably enhancers, and far more of the gene-distal non-coding genome is annotated as a regulatory element than is conserved.

    “Not all distal conserved elements are detectably enhancers39 and far more of the gene-distal non-coding genome is annotated as a regulatory element than is conserved60,104.”

    From Towards a comprehensive catalogue of validated and target-linked human enhancers (2020) · cites this paper as [104]

    The Detection of constrained sequence section reports that constrained elements span 4.2% of the genome. The Chromatin signatures section reports regulatory-associated chromatin states among noncoding constrained elements, but does not directly establish that far more of the gene-distal noncoding genome is annotated as regulatory than conserved. The first clause is attached to a different citation and is not assessed here; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The finding is consistent with the theory that selection keeps fitness-reducing alleles at low frequency at a large proportion of genes.

    “However, the finding is consistent with the theory that selection keeps fitness-reducing alleles at a large proportion of genes at low frequency35.”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Using WW data, INRICH enrichment analysis observed enrichment at empirical P ≤ .05 for the synaptic co-expression network M13, Mendelian disease genes, and human and primate-accelerated regions; none exceeded experiment-wise corrected P ≤ .05.

    “Using the WW data, we observe enrichment at an empirical P ≤ .05 for the synaptic co-expression network M13 [48], Mendelian disease genes [11], and both human (HARs) and primate-accelerated regions (PARs) [49]. None of these enrichments exceeded the experiment-wise corrected P ≤ .05.”
  • Many conserved noncoding elements were derived from transposable elements, and the number of conserved noncoding elements is sharply increased in the genome of placental mammals.

    “Many conserved noncoding elements were derived from transposable elements. Comparison of placental and marsupial genomes demonstrates that the number of conserved noncoding elements is sharply increased in the genome of placental mammals (Lindblad-Toh et al., 2011; Mikkelsen et al., 2007).”

    From Genetic Changes Shaping the Human Brain (2015) · cites this paper as Lindblad-Toh et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broad Institute Sequencing Platform and Whole Genome Assembly Team, Lindblad-Toh, K., Baylor College of Medicine Human Genome Sequencing Center Sequencing Team, Genome Institute at Washington University, Garber, M., Zuk, O., Lin, M. F., Parker, B. J., Washietl, S., Kheradpour, P., Ernst, J., Jordan, G., Mauceli, E., Ward, L. D., Lowe, C. B., Holloway, A. K., Clamp, M., Gnerre, S., Alföldi, J., Beal, K., Chang, J., Clawson, H., Cuff, J., Di Palma, F., Fitzgerald, S., Flicek, P., Guttman, M., Hubisz, M. J., Jaffe, D. B., Jungreis, I., Kent, W. J., Kostka, D., Lara, M., Martins, A. L., Massingham, T., Moltke, I., Raney, B. J., Rasmussen, M. D., Robinson, J., Stark, A., Vilella, A. J., Wen, J., Xie, X., Zody, M. C., Worley, K. C., Kovar, C. L., Muzny, D. M., Gibbs, R. A., Warren, W. C., Mardis, E. R., Weinstock, G. M., Wilson, R. K., Birney, E., Margulies, E. H., Herrero, J., Green, E. D., Haussler, D., Siepel, A., Goldman, N., Pollard, K. S., Pedersen, J. S., Lander, E. S., & Kellis, M.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Gladstone Institutes (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
  • Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (AT)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
  • Lander, Eric S.
  • Kellis, Manolis
Venue
Nature
Published
2011-10
Volume
478
Issue
7370
Pages
476-482
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2024439539
Cited by
1,108
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 78 · 2015: 122 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 109 · 2012: 79
FWCI
38.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0644282, 0905968)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Harvard University
  • Gladstone Institutes
  • Wellcome Trust (095908)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute
  • European Science Foundation
  • Cambridge Trust
  • Lundbeckfonden (R5-2006-123)
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
  • Gates Cambridge Trust
  • Uppsala Universitet
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Faculty of Arts and Sciences
  • Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG003067, U54HG003273, R01HG003474, R01HG004037)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM082901, #GM82901)
  • Division of Mathematical Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
human genome evolution, purifying selection, evolutionary constraints, comparative genomics, positive selection, RNA secondary structure, enhancers, promoter, insulators, stop codon readthrough, disease-associated variants
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease, Exons, Health, Humans, Mammals, Phylogeny, RNA, Selection, Genetic, Genome, Human, Sequence Alignment, Genome, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Evolution, Molecular, Genomics, Molecular Sequence Annotation

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