Cited by 454Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classification

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing genomic expression patterns across species identifies shared transcriptional profile in aging

Abstract

We developed a method for systematically comparing gene expression patterns across organisms using genome-wide comparative analysis of DNA microarray experiments. We identified analogous gene expression programs comprising shared patterns of regulation across orthologous genes. Biological features of these patterns could be identified as highly conserved subpatterns that correspond to Gene Ontology categories. Here, we demonstrate these methods by analyzing a specific biological process, aging, and show that similar analysis can be applied to a range of biological processes. We found that two highly diverged animals, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, implement a shared adult-onset expression program of genes involved in mitochondrial metabolism, DNA repair, catabolism, peptidolysis and cellular transport. Most of these changes were implemented early in adulthood. Using this approach to search databases of gene expression data, we found conserved transcriptional signatures in larval development, embryogenesis, gametogenesis and mRNA degradation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ng1291

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 51 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McCarroll, S. A., Murphy, C. T., Zou, S., Pletcher, S. D., Chin, C.-S., Jan, Y. N., Kenyon, C., Bargmann, C. I., & Li, H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Li, Hao
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2004-01-18
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
197-204
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2118852675
Cited by
454
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 29
FWCI
14.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Consorzio Interuniversitario Biotecnologie
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
gene expression comparison, orthologs, aging, gene expression signatures, Gene Ontology, Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster, mitochondrial metabolism, DNA repair, larval development, embryonic development, gametogenesis, mRNA degradation
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aging, Animals, Drosophila melanogaster, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Phylogeny, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Time Factors, Caenorhabditis elegans, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic

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