The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families
Abstract
We report a comprehensive comparative analysis of human and mouse olfactory receptor (OR) genes. The OR family is the largest mammalian gene family known. We identify approximately 93% of an estimated 1500 mouse ORs, exceeding previous estimates and the number of human ORs by 50%. Only 20% are pseudogenes, giving a functional OR repertoire in mice that is three times larger than that of human. The proteins encoded by intact human ORs are less highly conserved than those of mouse, in patterns that suggest that even some apparently intact human OR genes may encode non-functional proteins. Mouse ORs are clustered in 46 genomic locations, compared to a much more dispersed pattern in human. We find orthologous clusters at syntenic human locations for most mouse genes, indicating that most OR gene clusters predate primate-rodent divergence. However, many recent local OR duplications in both genomes obscure one-to-one orthologous relationships, thereby complicating cross-species inferences about OR-ligand interactions. Local duplications are the major force shaping the gene family. Recent interchromosomal duplications of ORs have also occurred, but much more frequently in human than in mouse. In addition to clarifying the evolutionary forces shaping this gene family, our study provides the basis for functional studies of the transcriptional regulation and ligand-binding capabilities of the OR gene family.
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
A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: A molecular basis for odor recognition
Buck, L., & Axel, R. (1991) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(91)90418-x · Cited by 4,987
Cited by
Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01262 · Cited by 7,187
Concerted and Birth-and-Death Evolution of Multigene Families
Nei, M., & Rooney, A. P. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.112240 · Cited by 1,298
Evolution's cauldron: Duplication, deletion, and rearrangement in the mouse and human genomes
Kent, W. J., Baertsch, R., Hinrichs, A., Miller, W., & Haussler, D. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1932072100 · Cited by 850
Olfaction: Diverse Species, Conserved Principles
Ache, B. W., & Young, J. M. (2005) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.022 · Cited by 655
Self-citationThe evolution of animal chemosensory receptor gene repertoires: roles of chance and necessity
Nei, M., Niimura, Y., & Nozawa, M. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2480 · Cited by 621
Metadata
- Authors
- Young, J. M.
- Venue
- Human Molecular Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-03-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 535-546
- ISSN
- 0964-6906 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2083
- OpenAlex
- W2164101639
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.18
- 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: Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/hmg/11.5.535
- The paper
- Young, J. M. (2002). Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families. Human Molecular Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/11.5.535
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.