The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deletional Bias across the Three Domains of Life
Open accessAbstract
Elevated levels of genetic drift are hypothesized to be a dominant factor that influences genome size evolution across all life-forms. However, increased levels of drift appear to be correlated with genome expansion in eukaryotes but with genome contraction in bacteria, suggesting that these two groups of organisms experience vastly different mutational inputs and selective constraints. To determine the contribution of small insertion and deletion events to the differences in genome organization between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, we systematically surveyed 17 taxonomic groups across the three domains of life. Based on over 5,000 indel events in noncoding regions, we found that deletional events outnumbered insertions in all groups examined. The extent of deletional bias, when measured by the total length of insertions to deletions, revealed a marked disparity between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, whereas the ratio was close to one in the three eukaryotic groups examined, deletions outweighed insertions by at least a factor of 10 in most prokaryotes. Moreover, the strength of deletional bias is associated with the proportion of coding regions in prokaryotic genomes. Considering that genetic drift is a stochastic process and does not discriminate the exact nature of mutations, the degree of bias toward deletions provides an explanation to the differential responses of eukaryotes and prokaryotes to elevated levels of drift. Furthermore, deletional bias, rather than natural selection, is the primary mechanism by which the compact gene packing within most prokaryotic genomes is maintained.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
OrthoMCL: Identification of Ortholog Groups for Eukaryotic Genomes
Li, L., Stoeckert, C. J., & Roos, D. S. (2003) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1224503 · Cited by 5,707
The origins of genome complexity
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089370 · Cited by 1,698
Prokaryotic Evolution in Light of Gene Transfer
Gogarten, J. P., Doolittle, W. F., & Lawrence, J. G. (2002) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004046 · Cited by 986
Synergy between sequence and size in Large-scale genomics
Gregory, T. R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1674 · Cited by 348
Evolutionary Origins of Genomic Repertoires in Bacteria
Lerat, E., Daubin, V., Ochman, H., & Moran, N. A. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030130 · Cited by 338
Self-citation
Cited by
Extreme genome reduction in symbiotic bacteria
McCutcheon, J. P., & Moran, N. A. (2012) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2670 · Cited by 1,464
Horizontal gene transfer and adaptive evolution in bacteria.
Arnold, B. J., Huang, I.-T., & Hanage, W. P. (2022) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-021-00650-4 · Cited by 869
Why prokaryotes have pangenomes
McInerney, J. O., McNally, A., & O'Connell, M. J. (2017) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.40 · Cited by 420
Genome reduction as the dominant mode of evolution
Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V. (2013) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201300037 · Cited by 314
Genomes in turmoil: quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes
Puigbò, P., Lobkovsky, A. E., Kristensen, D. M., Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V. (2014) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-014-0066-4 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuo, C.-H., & Ochman, H.
- Venue
- Genome Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-01-01
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 145-152
- ISSN
- 1759-6653 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119585200
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 9.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deletional Bias across the Three Domains of Life. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/gbe/evp016
- The paper
- Kuo, C.-H., & Ochman, H. (2009). Deletional Bias across the Three Domains of Life. Genome Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evp016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.