CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An episodic burst of massive genomic rearrangements and the origin of non-marine annelids

Vargas-Chávez, Carlos, Benítez-Álvarez, Lisandra, Martínez-Redondo, Gemma I., Álvarez-González, Lucía, Salces-Ortiz, Judit, Eleftheriadi, Klara, Escudero, Nuria, Guiglielmoni, Nadège, Flot, Jean-François, Novo, Marta, Ruiz-Herrera, Aurora, McLysaght, Aoife, Fernández, Rosa·2025·Nature Ecology & Evolution
DOI 10.1038/s41559-025-02728-1

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-025-02728-1

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • There are many other epigenetic and transcriptomic features of genomes which can impact phenotypes, including DNA methylation, chromatin structure, structural rearrangements, and interactions between RNA, proteins, and their environment.

    “These features include DNA methylation, chromatin structure, structural rearrangements (Vargas-Chavez et al. 2025), and the interactions between RNA, proteins, and their environment.”

    From From Trees to Traits: A Review of Advances in PhyloG2P Methods and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Vargas-Chavez et al. 2025

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Nakatani, Y. et al. Reconstruction of proto-vertebrate, proto-cyclostome and proto-gnathostome genomes provides new insights into early vertebrate evolution. Nat. Commun. 12, 4489 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Marlétaz, F. et al. The hagfish genome and the evolution of vertebrates. Nature 627, 811–820 (2024). · DOI
  3. Yu, D. et al. Hagfish genome elucidates vertebrate whole-genome duplication events and their evolutionary consequences. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 519–535 (2024). · DOI
  4. Wright, C. J., Stevens, L., Mackintosh, A., Lawniczak, M. & Blaxter, M. Comparative genomics reveals the dynamics of chromosome evolution in Lepidoptera. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 777–790 (2024). · DOI
  5. Lewin, T. D. et al. Fusion, fission, and scrambling of the bilaterian genome in Bryozoa. Genome Res. 35, 78–92 (2024). · DOI
  6. Albertin, C. B. et al. Genome and transcriptome mechanisms driving cephalopod evolution. Nat. Commun. 13, 2427 (2022). · DOI
  7. Plessy, C. et al. Extreme genome scrambling in marine planktonic Oikopleura dioica cryptic species. Genome Res 34, 426–440 (2024).
  8. Lewin, T. D., Liao, I. J.-Y. & Luo, Y.-J. Annelid comparative genomics and the evolution of massive lineage-specific genome rearrangement in bilaterians. Mol. Biol. Evol. 41, msae172 (2024). · DOI
  9. Schultz, D. T. et al. Acceleration of genome rearrangement in clitellate annelids. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.12.593736 (2024). · DOI
  10. Dehal, P. & Boore, J. L. Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate. PLoS Biol. 3, e314 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Meyer, A. & Van de Peer, Y. From 2R to 3R: evidence for a fish-specific genome duplication (FSGD). Bioessays 27, 937–945 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Nakatani, Y., Takeda, H., Kohara, Y. & Morishita, S. Reconstruction of the vertebrate ancestral genome reveals dynamic genome reorganization in early vertebrates. Genome Res. 17, 1254–1265 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Nakatani, Y. & McLysaght, A. Genomes as documents of evolutionary history: a probabilistic macrosynteny model for the reconstruction of ancestral genomes. Bioinformatics 33, i369–i378 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Erséus, C. et al. Phylogenomic analyses reveal a Palaeozoic radiation and support a freshwater origin for clitellate annelids. Zool. Scr. 49, 614–640 (2020). · DOI
  15. Andrade, S. C. S. et al. Articulating ‘archiannelids’: phylogenomics and annelid relationships, with emphasis on meiofaunal taxa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 2860–2875 (2015). · DOI
  16. Struck, T. H. et al. Phylogenomic analyses unravel annelid evolution. Nature 471, 95–98 (2011). · DOI
  17. Ly, P. & Cleveland, D. W. Rebuilding chromosomes after catastrophe: emerging mechanisms of chromothripsis. Trends Cell Biol. 27, 917–930 (2017). · DOI
  18. Xu, X. et al. Structure specific DNA recognition by the SLX1-SLX4 endonuclease complex. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, 7740–7752 (2021). · DOI
  19. Labib, K. & Gambus, A. A key role for the GINS complex at DNA replication forks. Trends Cell Biol. 17, 271–278 (2007). · DOI
  20. Ortega, J., Lee, G. S., Gu, L., Yang, W. & Li, G.-M. Mispair-bound human MutS-MutL complex triggers DNA incisions and activates mismatch repair. Cell Res. 31, 542–553 (2021). · DOI
  21. Sugiyama, T. et al. SHREC, an effector complex for heterochromatic transcriptional silencing. Cell 128, 491–504 (2007). · DOI
  22. Álvarez-González, L. et al. 3D chromatin remodelling in the germ line modulates genome evolutionary plasticity. Nat. Commun. 13, 2608 (2022). · DOI
  23. Shao, Y. et al. Genome and single-cell RNA-sequencing of the earthworm Eisenia andrei identifies cellular mechanisms underlying regeneration. Nat. Commun. 11, 2656 (2020). · DOI
  24. Muldal, S. The chromosomes of the earthworms: I. the evolution of polyploidy. Heredity 6, 56–76 (1952). · DOI
  25. Malik, H. S. & Henikoff, S. Major evolutionary transitions in centromere complexity. Cell 138, 1067–1082 (2009). · DOI
  26. Malik, H. S. & Henikoff, S. Conflict begets complexity: the evolution of centromeres. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 12, 711–718 (2002). · DOI
  27. Kawashima, T. et al. Domain shuffling and the evolution of vertebrates. Genome Res. 19, 1393–1403 (2009). · DOI
  28. Hoencamp, C. et al. 3D genomics across the tree of life reveals condensin II as a determinant of architecture type. Science 372, 984–989 (2021). · DOI
  29. Álvarez-González, L. et al. Principles of 3D chromosome folding and evolutionary genome reshuffling in mammals. Cell Rep. 41, 111839 (2022). · DOI
  30. Serra, F. et al. Automatic analysis and 3D-modelling of Hi-C data using TADbit reveals structural features of the fly chromatin colors. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005665 (2017). · DOI
  31. Landweber, L. F., Kuo, T. C. & Curtis, E. A. Evolution and assembly of an extremely scrambled gene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 3298–3303 (2000). · DOI
  32. Duchemin, L., Lanore, V., Veber, P. & Boussau, B. Evaluation of methods to detect shifts in directional selection at the genome scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 40, msac247 (2023). · DOI
  33. Kosakovsky et al. HyPhy 2.5—a customizable platform for evolutionary hypothesis testing using phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 295–299 (2020). · DOI
  34. Tatusov, R. L., Koonin, E. V. & Lipman, D. J. A genomic perspective on protein families. Science 278, 631–637 (1997). · DOI
  35. Simakov, O. et al. Insights into bilaterian evolution from three spiralian genomes. Nature 493, 526–531 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  36. Moggioli, G. et al. Distinct genomic routes underlie transitions to specialised symbiotic lifestyles in deep-sea annelid worms. Nat. Commun. 14, 2814 (2023). · DOI
  37. Eldredge, N. Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria (Princeton Univ. Press, 2014). · DOI
  38. Pavlíček, T. et al. Aneuploidy occurrence in Oligochaeta. Ecol. Evolut. Biol. 1, 57–63 (2016).
  39. Baker, T. M., Waise, S., Tarabichi, M. & Van Loo, P. Aneuploidy and complex genomic rearrangements in cancer evolution. Nat. Cancer 5, 228–239 (2024). · DOI
  40. Mazzagatti, A., Engel, J. L. & Ly, P. Boveri and beyond: chromothripsis and genomic instability from mitotic errors. Mol. Cell 84, 55–69 (2024). · DOI
  41. Michael Ghadimi, B. & Ried, T. Chromosomal Instability in Cancer Cells (Springer, 2015). · DOI
  42. Zhang, J., Zhang, Y.-P. & Rosenberg, H. F. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nat. Genet. 30, 411–415 (2002). · DOI
  43. Ivanković, M. et al. A comparative analysis of planarian genomes reveals regulatory conservation in the face of rapid structural divergence. Nat. Commun. 15, 8215 (2024). · DOI
  44. Flynn, J. M. et al. RepeatModeler2 for automated genomic discovery of transposable element families. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9451–9457 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  45. Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10–12 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  46. Haas, B. J. et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1494–1512 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kim, D., Paggi, J. M., Park, C., Bennett, C. & Salzberg, S. L. Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 907–915 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  48. Haas, B. J. et al. Improving the Arabidopsis genome annotation using maximal transcript alignment assemblies. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 5654–5666 (2003). · DOI
  49. Keller, O., Kollmar, M., Stanke, M. & Waack, S. A novel hybrid gene prediction method employing protein multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 27, 757–763 (2011). · DOI
  50. Lomsadze, A., Ter-Hovhannisyan, V., Chernoff, Y. O. & Borodovsky, M. Gene identification in novel eukaryotic genomes by self-training algorithm. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 6494–6506 (2005). · DOI
  51. Haas, B. J. et al. Automated eukaryotic gene structure annotation using EVidenceModeler and the program to assemble spliced alignments. Genome Biol. 9, R7 (2008). · DOI
  52. Kuznetsov, D. et al. OrthoDB v11: annotation of orthologs in the widest sampling of organismal diversity. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D445–D451 (2023). · DOI
  53. Martínez-Redondo, G. I. et al. MATEdb2, a collection of high-quality metazoan proteomes across the animal tree of life to speed up phylogenomic studies. Genome Biol. Evol. 16, eva235 (2024). · DOI
  54. Hickey, G., Paten, B., Earl, D., Zerbino, D. & Haussler, D. HAL: a hierarchical format for storing and analyzing multiple genome alignments. Bioinformatics 29, 1341–1342 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  55. Sensalari, C., Maere, S. & Lohaus, R. ksrates: positioning whole-genome duplications relative to speciation events in KS distributions. Bioinformatics 38, 530–532 (2022). · DOI
  56. Chen, D., Zhang, T., Chen, Y., Ma, H. & Qi, J. Tree2GD: a phylogenomic method to detect large-scale gene duplication events. Bioinformatics 38, 5317–5321 (2022). · DOI
  57. Zhang, Y., Chu, J., Cheng, H. & Li, H. De novo reconstruction of satellite repeat units from sequence data. Genome Res. 33, 1994–2001 (2023). · DOI
  58. Lawrence, M. et al. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLOS Comp. Biol. 9, e1003118 (2013). · DOI
  59. Struck, T. H. Direction of evolution within Annelida and the definition of Pleistoannelida. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res 49, 340–345 (2011). · DOI
  60. Struck, T. H. et al. The evolution of annelids reveals two adaptive routes to the interstitial realm. Curr. Biol. 25, 1993–1999 (2015). · DOI
  61. Weigert, A. et al. Illuminating the base of the annelid tree using transcriptomics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 1391–1401 (2014). · DOI
  62. Altenhoff, A. M. et al. OMA standalone: orthology inference among public and custom genomes and transcriptomes. Genome Res. 29, 1152–1163 (2019). · DOI
  63. Train, C.-M., Pignatelli, M., Altenhoff, A. & Dessimoz, C. iHam and pyHam: visualizing and processing hierarchical orthologous groups. Bioinformatics 35, 2504–2506 (2019). · DOI
  64. Cantalapiedra, C. P., Hernández-Plaza, A., Letunic, I., Bork, P. & Huerta-Cepas, J. eggNOG-mapper v2: functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic Scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 5825–5829 (2021). · DOI
  65. Martínez-Redondo, G. I., Barrios-Núñez, I., Vázquez-Valls, M., Rojas, A. M. & Fernández, R. Leveraging Natural Language Processing models to decode the dark proteome across the Animal Tree of Life. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.28.582465 (2024). · DOI
  66. Wolff, J. et al. Galaxy HiCExplorer 3: a web server for reproducible Hi-C, capture Hi-C and single-cell Hi-C data analysis, quality control and visualization. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, W177–W184 (2020). · DOI
  67. Lieberman-Aiden, E. et al. Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326, 289–293 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  68. Kruse, K., Hug, C. B. & Vaquerizas, J. M. FAN-C: a feature-rich framework for the analysis and visualisation of chromosome conformation capture data. Genome Biol. 21, 303 (2020). · DOI
  69. Schmidbaur, H. et al. Emergence of novel cephalopod gene regulation and expression through large-scale genome reorganization. Nat. Commun. 13, 2172 (2022). · DOI · Paper page
  70. Pockrandt, C., Alzamel, M., Iliopoulos, C. S. & Reinert, K. GenMap: ultra-fast computation of genome mappability. Bioinformatics 36, 3687–3692 (2020). · DOI
  71. Krzywinski, M. et al. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 19, 1639–1645 (2009). · DOI
  72. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995). · DOI · Paper page
  73. Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinf. 10, 421 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  74. Minh, B. Q. et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1530–1534 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  75. Smith, M. D. et al. Less is more: an adaptive branch-site random effects model for efficient detection of episodic diversifying selection. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 1342–1353 (2015). · DOI
  76. Mulhair, P. O. et al. Bursts of novel composite gene families at major nodes in animal evolution. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.10.548381 (2023). · DOI
  77. Pathmanathan, J. S., Lopez, P., Lapointe, F.-J. & Bapteste, E. CompositeSearch: a generalized network approach for composite gene families detection. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 252–255 (2018). · DOI
  78. Capa, M., Aguado, M. T., & Bleidorn, C. in Fauna Ibérica. Vol. 45 (CSIC-Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, 2018).
  79. Fishman, V. et al. 3D organization of chicken genome demonstrates evolutionary conservation of topologically associated domains and highlights unique architecture of erythrocytes’ chromatin. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, 648–665 (2019). · DOI
  80. Arzate-Mejía, R. G., Josué Cerecedo-Castillo, A., Guerrero, G., Furlan-Magaril, M. & Recillas-Targa, F. In situ dissection of domain boundaries affect genome topology and gene transcription in Drosophila. Nat. Commun. 11, 894 (2020). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Vargas-Chávez, C., Benítez-Álvarez, L., Martínez-Redondo, G. I., Álvarez-González, L., Salces-Ortiz, J., Eleftheriadi, K., Escudero, N., Guiglielmoni, N., Flot, J.-F., Novo, M., Ruiz-Herrera, A., McLysaght, A., & Fernández, R.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-06-18
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
1263-1279
ISSN
2397-334X
DOI
10.1038/s41559-025-02728-1
Cited by
35
References
8
Language
en
Licence

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