Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 487

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Probability of Preservation of a Newly Arisen Gene Duplicate

Lynch, Michael, O'Hely, Martin, Walsh, Bruce, Force, Allan·2001·Genetics

Abstract

Newly emerging data from genome sequencing projects suggest that gene duplication, often accompanied by genetic map changes, is a common and ongoing feature of all genomes. This raises the possibility that differential expansion/contraction of various genomic sequences may be just as important a mechanism of phenotypic evolution as changes at the nucleotide level. However, the population-genetic mechanisms responsible for the success vs. failure of newly arisen gene duplicates are poorly understood. We examine the influence of various aspects of gene structure, mutation rates, degree of linkage, and population size (N) on the joint fate of a newly arisen duplicate gene and its ancestral locus. Unless there is active selection against duplicate genes, the probability of permanent establishment of such genes is usually no less than 1/(4N) (half of the neutral expectation), and it can be orders of magnitude greater if neofunctionalizing mutations are common. The probability of a map change (reassignment of a key function of an ancestral locus to a new chromosomal location) induced by a newly arisen duplicate is also generally >1/(4N) for unlinked duplicates, suggesting that recurrent gene duplication and alternative silencing may be a common mechanism for generating microchromosomal rearrangements responsible for postreproductive isolating barriers among species. Relative to subfunctionalization, neofunctionalization is expected to become a progressively more important mechanism of duplicate-gene preservation in populations with increasing size. However, even in large populations, the probability of neofunctionalization scales only with the square of the selective advantage. Tight linkage also influences the probability of duplicate-gene preservation, increasing the probability of subfunctionalization but decreasing the probability of neofunctionalization.

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 · 10.1093/genetics/159.4.1789

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

See all 487

Metadata

Authors
Lynch, M., O'Hely, M., Walsh, B., & Force, A.
Venue
Genetics
Published
2001-12-01
Volume
159
Issue
4
Pages
1789-1804
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W1857738277
Cited by
487
References
2
FWCI
32.23
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 Preservation of a Newly Arisen Gene Duplicate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/159.4.1789
The paper
Lynch, M., O'Hely, M., Walsh, B., & Force, A. (2001). The Probability of Preservation of a Newly Arisen Gene Duplicate. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/159.4.1789

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.