Cited by 220Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic VariationsEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Comparison of the genomes of human and mouse lays the foundation of genome zoology

Emes, R. D.·2003·Human Molecular Genetics

Abstract

The extensive similarities between the genomes of human and model organisms are the foundation of much of modern biology, with model organism experimentation permitting valuable insights into biological function and the aetiology of human disease. In contrast, differences among genomes have received less attention. Yet these can be expected to govern the physiological and morphological distinctions apparent among species, especially if such differences are the result of evolutionary adaptation. A recent comparison of the draft sequences of mouse and human genomes has shed light on the selective forces that have predominated in their recent evolutionary histories. In particular, mouse-specific clusters of homologues associated with roles in reproduction, immunity and host defence appear to be under diversifying positive selective pressure, as indicated by high ratios of non-synonymous to synonymous substitution rates. These clusters are also frequently punctuated by homologous pseudogenes. They thus have experienced numerous gene death, as well as gene birth, events. These regions appear, therefore, to have borne the brunt of adaptive evolution that underlies physiological and behavioural innovation in mice. We predict that the availability of numerous animal genomes will give rise to a new field of genome zoology in which differences in animal physiology and ethology are illuminated by the study of genomic sequence variations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/hmg/ddg078

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Genes duplicated or deleted in the monotreme lineage, or lost in eutherian and/or marsupial lineages, are proposed to contribute most to lineage-specific biological functions that distinguish individual mammals.

    “Such genes are proposed to contribute most to the lineage-specific biological functions that distinguish individual mammals 30 .”
  • Patterns of evolution among duplicated genes in opossum largely mirror those observed in eutherians.

    “The patterns of evolution among duplicated genes largely mirror those observed in eutherians 34,70 .”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Emes, R. D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Emes, R. D.
Venue
Human Molecular Genetics
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
701-709
ISSN
  • 0964-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2083
OpenAlex
W2152893224
Cited by
220
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Molecular Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
positive selection, diversifying selection, pseudogenes, gene birth and death, reproductive genes, immune-related genes, adaptive evolution, comparative genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Multigene Family, Genetics, Humans, Models, Genetic, Species Specificity, Genome, Human, Genome, Evolution, Molecular, Gene Duplication, Mice

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