The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Probability of Duplicate Gene Preservation by Subfunctionalization
Abstract
It has often been argued that gene-duplication events are most commonly followed by a mutational event that silences one member of the pair, while on rare occasions both members of the pair are preserved as one acquires a mutation with a beneficial function and the other retains the original function. However, empirical evidence from genome duplication events suggests that gene duplicates are preserved in genomes far more commonly and for periods far in excess of the expectations under this model, and whereas some gene duplicates clearly evolve new functions, there is little evidence that this is the most common mechanism of duplicate-gene preservation. An alternative hypothesis is that gene duplicates are frequently preserved by subfunctionalization, whereby both members of a pair experience degenerative mutations that reduce their joint levels and patterns of activity to that of the single ancestral gene. We consider the ways in which the probability of duplicate-gene preservation by such complementary mutations is modified by aspects of gene structure, degree of linkage, mutation rates and effects, and population size. Even if most mutations cause complete loss-of-subfunction, the probability of duplicate-gene preservation can be appreciable if the long-term effective population size is on the order of 105 or smaller, especially if there are more than two independently mutable subfunctions per locus. Even a moderate incidence of partial loss-of-function mutations greatly elevates the probability of preservation. The model proposed herein leads to quantitative predictions that are consistent with observations on the frequency of long-term duplicate gene preservation and with observations that indicate that a common fate of the members of duplicate-gene pairs is the partitioning of tissue-specific patterns of expression of the ancestral gene.
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
Self-citationPolyploid 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
The origins of genome complexity
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089370 · Cited by 1,698
Self-citationOrthologs, Paralogs, and Evolutionary Genomics
Koonin, E. V. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.114725 · Cited by 1,323
Turning a hobby into a job: How duplicated genes find new functions
Conant, G. C., & Wolfe, K. H. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2482 · Cited by 1,281
Metadata
- Authors
- Lynch, M., & Force, A.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-01-01
- Volume
- 154
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 459-473
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W1913751214
- Cited by
- 1,550
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.93
- 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: The Probability of Duplicate Gene Preservation by Subfunctionalization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/154.1.459
- The paper
- Lynch, M., & Force, A. (2000). The Probability of Duplicate Gene Preservation by Subfunctionalization. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/154.1.459
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.