The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparable Rates of Gene Loss and Functional Divergence After Genome Duplications Early in Vertebrate Evolution
Abstract
Duplicated genes are an important source of new protein functions and novel developmental and physiological pathways. Whereas most models for fate of duplicated genes show that they tend to be rapidly lost, models for pathway evolution suggest that many duplicated genes rapidly acquire novel functions. Little empirical evidence is available, however, for the relative rates of gene loss vs. divergence to help resolve these contradictory expectations. Gene families resulting from genome duplications provide an opportunity to address this apparent contradiction. With genome duplication, the number of duplicated genes in a gene family is at most 2n, where n is the number of duplications. The size of each gene family, e.g., 1, 2, 3,..., 2n, reflects the patterns of gene loss vs. functional divergence after duplication. We focused on gene families in humans and mice that arose from genome duplications in early vertebrate evolution and we analyzed the frequency distribution of gene family size, i.e., the number of families with two, three or four members. All the models that we evaluated showed that duplicated genes are almost as likely to acquire a new and essential function as to be lost through acquisition of mutations that compromise protein function. An explanation for the unexpectedly high rate of functional divergence is that duplication allows genes to accumulate more neutral than disadvantageous mutations, thereby providing more opportunities to acquire diversified functions and pathways.
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
Cited by
The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1151 · Cited by 4,988
Preservation of Duplicate Genes by Complementary, Degenerative Mutations
Force, A., Lynch, M., Pickett, F. B., Amores, A., Yan, Y.-L., & Postlethwait, J. (1999) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/151.4.1531 · Cited by 3,529
Polyploid incidence and evolution
Otto, S. P., & Whitton, J. (2000) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.401 · Cited by 2,363
Byrne, K. P., & Wolfe, K. H. (2005) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.3672305 · Cited by 720
On the Possibility of Constructive Neutral Evolution
Stoltzfus, A. (1999) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/pl00006540 · Cited by 533
Metadata
- Authors
- Nadeau, J. H., & Sankoff, D.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-11-01
- Volume
- 147
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1259-1266
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W1763075905
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Comparable Rates of Gene Loss and Functional Divergence After Genome Duplications Early in Vertebrate Evolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/147.3.1259
- The paper
- Nadeau, J. H., & Sankoff, D. (1997). Comparable Rates of Gene Loss and Functional Divergence After Genome Duplications Early in Vertebrate Evolution. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/147.3.1259
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.