CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65

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

Deep Conservation of Human Protein Tandem Repeats within the Eukaryotes

Schaper, Elke, Gascuel, Olivier, Anisimova, Maria·2014·Molecular Biology and Evolution
DOI 10.1093/molbev/msu062PMC PMC3995336
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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/molbev/msu062

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. Tandem repeat unit evolution. (A) A scenario of TR unit evolution for species A and B represented by TR unit phylogeny, where nodes mark either speciation events or TR unit duplications. Abandoned edges mark a TR unit loss. The ancestral TR region is created through duplications of an ancestral subsequence, that is, the unique TR unit at the root of the phylogeny (black). Immediately following the speciation event, exact copies of the TR reside in orthologous proteins in both species (pink and blue), even after some point mutations in TR units the TR still is perfectly conserved, as long as the amino acid identity remains high. The th TR unit in A is the closest to the th unit in B. Subsequent TR unit duplications and losses diminish the conservation of the TR between species A and B. Without point mutations, the more TR unit losses or gains occur, the more TR units begin to cluster by sequence similarity within the same species. (B) The bi-species TR unit phylogeny of a perfectly conserved WD repeat (PF00400) in the human TORC subunit ENSP00000457870 and its yeast ortholog YNL006W. The TR units are indexed by their order along the protein sequence. The depicted phylogeny allows to reconstruct ancient TR unit duplications leading to the currently observed TR regions in fungi and animals before their divergence ∼0.6–1.6 byr ago (Taylor and Berbee 2007). (C) The bi-species TR unit phylogeny of a perfectly separated TR in the human NAC-alpha domain-containing protein 1 ENSP00000420477 and its mouse ortholog ENSMUSP00000049490. The ancestral protein presumably contained a TR region with multiple repeat units. Yet, the TR region cannot be reconstructed due to the fast succession of TR unit gains/losses in at least one of the lineages.
Fig. 1. Tandem repeat unit evolution. (A) A scenario of TR unit evolution for species A and B represented by TR unit phylogeny, where nodes mark either speciation events or TR unit duplications. Abandoned edges mark a TR unit loss. The ancestral TR region is created through duplications of an ancestral subsequence, that is, the unique TR unit at the root of the phylogeny (black). Immediately following the speciation event, exact copies of the TR reside in orthologous proteins in both species (pink and blue), even after some point mutations in TR units the TR still is perfectly conserved, as long as the amino acid identity remains high. The th TR unit in A is the closest to the th unit in B. Subsequent TR unit duplications and losses diminish the conservation of the TR between species A and B. Without point mutations, the more TR unit losses or gains occur, the more TR units begin to cluster by sequence similarity within the same species. (B) The bi-species TR unit phylogeny of a perfectly conserved WD repeat (PF00400) in the human TORC subunit ENSP00000457870 and its yeast ortholog YNL006W. The TR units are indexed by their order along the protein sequence. The depicted phylogeny allows to reconstruct ancient TR unit duplications leading to the currently observed TR regions in fungi and animals before their divergence ∼0.6–1.6 byr ago (Taylor and Berbee 2007). (C) The bi-species TR unit phylogeny of a perfectly separated TR in the human NAC-alpha domain-containing protein 1 ENSP00000420477 and its mouse ortholog ENSMUSP00000049490. The ancestral protein presumably contained a TR region with multiple repeat units. Yet, the TR region cannot be reconstructed due to the fast succession of TR unit gains/losses in at least one of the lineages.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. Circular TR sequence profile HMM. Shown is an example of a profile HMM describing a TR unit with three consensus positions, where basic match states (M), deletion states (D), insertions states (I), and transitions correspond to the HMMER core model (Eddy 2008). Repetitions of the motif in tandem are modeled by introducing transitions from the final consensus position to the first consensus position. The transitions probabilities for the final match state (pink), deletion state (red), and insertion state (orange) are taken as the normalized means of the corresponding transitions probabilities in all other consensus positions. The probability to enter the TR is equal for all match states (blue). Similarly, for all match states it is assumed to be equally likely to stay in the TR or leave the TR (blue).
Fig. 2. Circular TR sequence profile HMM. Shown is an example of a profile HMM describing a TR unit with three consensus positions, where basic match states (M), deletion states (D), insertions states (I), and transitions correspond to the HMMER core model (Eddy 2008). Repetitions of the motif in tandem are modeled by introducing transitions from the final consensus position to the first consensus position. The transitions probabilities for the final match state (pink), deletion state (red), and insertion state (orange) are taken as the normalized means of the corresponding transitions probabilities in all other consensus positions. The probability to enter the TR is equal for all match states (blue). Similarly, for all match states it is assumed to be equally likely to stay in the TR or leave the TR (blue).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Conservation and separation of 3,091 human protein Tandem repeats (TRs) across the eukaryotes. (A) The y-axis shows the number of human TRs conserved at least since the root of different reference clades denoted on the x-axis and ordered by their generality. We established conservation in a cross-comparative analysis of human TRs with their orthologous TRs in all species outside the clade. Denoted in blue are the four different measures of sequence conservation, where darker color marks a higher degree of conservation. To establish conservation of a human TR at least to the root of a clade, the human TR was compared with orthologous TRs in all outgroup species outside the clade. For example, 1,669 human TRs in our data set are perfectly conserved compared with one or more TRs in orthologs from any of the 21 nonmammalian species, providing evidence that these human TRs have been conserved at least since the root of all mammals (blue continuous curve). From more general to more specific clades, the number of human TRs with evidence for conservation at least to the root of the clade is cumulatively increasing. (B) The y-axis shows the number of human TRs separated compared with at least one other species within the clade. Denoted in red are the three measures of TR separation, where darker color marks the higher degree of separation. For example, 146 human TRs in our data set are perfectly separated compared with one or more TRs in orthologs from any of the other 39 mammalian species (red continuous curve). As the number of species in the clade wise comparison increases from Hominines to broader clades, the number of separated TRs is growing cumulatively.
Fig. 3. Conservation and separation of 3,091 human protein Tandem repeats (TRs) across the eukaryotes. (A) The y-axis shows the number of human TRs conserved at least since the root of different reference clades denoted on the x-axis and ordered by their generality. We established conservation in a cross-comparative analysis of human TRs with their orthologous TRs in all species outside the clade. Denoted in blue are the four different measures of sequence conservation, where darker color marks a higher degree of conservation. To establish conservation of a human TR at least to the root of a clade, the human TR was compared with orthologous TRs in all outgroup species outside the clade. For example, 1,669 human TRs in our data set are perfectly conserved compared with one or more TRs in orthologs from any of the 21 nonmammalian species, providing evidence that these human TRs have been conserved at least since the root of all mammals (blue continuous curve). From more general to more specific clades, the number of human TRs with evidence for conservation at least to the root of the clade is cumulatively increasing. (B) The y-axis shows the number of human TRs separated compared with at least one other species within the clade. Denoted in red are the three measures of TR separation, where darker color marks the higher degree of separation. For example, 146 human TRs in our data set are perfectly separated compared with one or more TRs in orthologs from any of the other 39 mammalian species (red continuous curve). As the number of species in the clade wise comparison increases from Hominines to broader clades, the number of separated TRs is growing cumulatively.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4. TR types and GO enrichment of human proteins with conserved and separated TRs. (A) TRs that have been strongly conserved at least since the root of mammals; (B) TRs that show strong separation compared with an orthologous TR in at least one other mammal. The first summary bar in each plot shows the frequency of the different TR types: there are 1,896 conserved TRs, with the WD40 TR being the most frequent, and 236 separated TRs, with the Zinc finger TR being the most frequent. All TR types based on de novo TR detections were binned into one category (denoted with dark gray), although they may describe very diverse motifs. Likewise, TR types based on PFAM annotations with low frequencies (<30 TRs for the set of strongly conserved TRs, and <3 TRs for the set of strongly separated TRs) were binned together (denoted with light gray). The thinner bars below the summary bars show representative enriched GO terms ordered by their frequency. Each bar corresponding to a GO term depicts the distribution of different TR types in proteins annotated with this GO term. GO terms are grouped by their respective ontology: Biological Process (BP), Molecular Function (MF), or Cellular Component (CC).
Fig. 4. TR types and GO enrichment of human proteins with conserved and separated TRs. (A) TRs that have been strongly conserved at least since the root of mammals; (B) TRs that show strong separation compared with an orthologous TR in at least one other mammal. The first summary bar in each plot shows the frequency of the different TR types: there are 1,896 conserved TRs, with the WD40 TR being the most frequent, and 236 separated TRs, with the Zinc finger TR being the most frequent. All TR types based on de novo TR detections were binned into one category (denoted with dark gray), although they may describe very diverse motifs. Likewise, TR types based on PFAM annotations with low frequencies (<30 TRs for the set of strongly conserved TRs, and <3 TRs for the set of strongly separated TRs) were binned together (denoted with light gray). The thinner bars below the summary bars show representative enriched GO terms ordered by their frequency. Each bar corresponding to a GO term depicts the distribution of different TR types in proteins annotated with this GO term. GO terms are grouped by their respective ontology: Biological Process (BP), Molecular Function (MF), or Cellular Component (CC).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5. Characteristics of separated versus conserved tandem repeats. Shown are frequency distributions of TR characteristics (see Materials and Methods) for strongly conserved (blue) and strongly separated (red) human TRs, with the mammalian clade as the reference. For each TR type defined by distinct circular HMMs, the mean value was calculated for each characteristic. For example, the mean number of zinc finger TR units was 7 for conserved TRs and 13 for separated TRs, each constituting one data point summarizing a large family of zinc fingers. The total data set comprises average values for 235 TR types with strongly conserved TRs and 86 TR types with strongly separated TRs.
Fig. 5. Characteristics of separated versus conserved tandem repeats. Shown are frequency distributions of TR characteristics (see Materials and Methods) for strongly conserved (blue) and strongly separated (red) human TRs, with the mammalian clade as the reference. For each TR type defined by distinct circular HMMs, the mean value was calculated for each characteristic. For example, the mean number of zinc finger TR units was 7 for conserved TRs and 13 for separated TRs, each constituting one data point summarizing a large family of zinc fingers. The total data set comprises average values for 235 TR types with strongly conserved TRs and 86 TR types with strongly separated TRs.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Abraham, 2009, Alternative to homo-oligomerisation: the creation of local symmetry in proteins by internal amplification, J Mol Biol., 394, 522, 10.1016/j.jmb.2009.09.031 · DOI
  2. Angst, 2001, The cadherin superfamily: diversity in form and function, J Cell Sci., 114, 629, 10.1242/jcs.114.4.629 · DOI
  3. Auton, 2012, A fine-scale chimpanzee genetic map from population sequencing, Science, 336, 193, 10.1126/science.1216872 · DOI
  4. Barford, 2012, The role of multiple sequence repeat motifs in the assembly of multi-protein complexes, 43, 10.1007/978-94-007-2530-0_3 · DOI
  5. Baudat, 2010, PRDM9 is a major determinant of meiotic recombination hotspots in humans and mice, Science, 327, 836, 10.1126/science.1183439 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Berg, 2011, Variants of the protein PRDM9 differentially regulate a set of human meiotic recombination hotspots highly active in African populations, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 108, 12378, 10.1073/pnas.1109531108 · DOI
  7. Bhargava, 2010, Mutational dynamics of microsatellites, Mol Biotechnol., 44, 250, 10.1007/s12033-009-9230-4 · DOI
  8. Biegert, 2008, De novo identification of highly diverged protein repeats by probabilistic consistency, Bioinformatics, 24, 807, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn039 · DOI
  9. Björklund, 2006, Expansion of protein domain repeats, PLoS Comput Biol., 2, e114, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020114 · DOI
  10. Björklund, 2010, Nebulin: a study of protein repeat evolution, J Mol Biol., 402, 38, 10.1016/j.jmb.2010.07.011 · DOI
  11. Bornberg-Bauer, 2013, Dynamics and adaptive benefits of modular protein evolution, Curr Opin Struct Biol., 23, 459, 10.1016/j.sbi.2013.02.012 · DOI
  12. Carter, 1990, On the distribution of lengths of evolutionary trees, SIAM J Discrete Math., 3, 38, 10.1137/0403005 · DOI
  13. Chevanne, 2010, WD-repeat instability and diversification of the Podospora anserina hnwd non-self recognition gene family, BMC Evol Biol., 10, 134, 10.1186/1471-2148-10-134 · DOI
  14. Coil, 2008, Intragenic tandem repeat variation between Legionella pneumophila strains, BMC Microbiol., 8, 218, 10.1186/1471-2180-8-218 · DOI
  15. de Wit, 2011, Role of leucine-rich repeat proteins in the development and function of neural circuits, Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol., 27, 697, 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-092910-154111 · DOI
  16. Diskin, 2009, Copy number variation at 1q21.1 associated with neuroblastoma, Nature, 459, 987, 10.1038/nature08035 · DOI
  17. Dumas, 2012, DUF1220-domain copy number implicated in human brain-size pathology and evolution, Am J Hum Genet., 91, 444, 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.07.016 · DOI
  18. Eddy, 1998, Profile hidden Markov models, Bioinformatics, 14, 755, 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.755 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Eddy, 2008, A probabilistic model of local sequence alignment that simplifies statistical significance estimation, PLoS Comput Biol., 4, e1000069, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000069 · DOI
  20. Eden, 2009, GOrilla: a tool for discovery and visualization of enriched GO terms in ranked gene lists, BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 48, 10.1186/1471-2105-10-48 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Elemento, 2002, Reconstructing the duplication history of tandemly repeated genes, Mol Biol Evol., 19, 278, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004081 · DOI
  22. Ellegren, 2004, Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution, Nat Rev Genet., 5, 435, 10.1038/nrg1348 · DOI
  23. Faux, 2007, RCPdb: an evolutionary classification and codon usage database for repeat-containing proteins, Genome Res., 17, 1118, 10.1101/gr.6255407 · DOI
  24. Felsenstein, 1988, Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability, Annu Rev Genet., 22, 521, 10.1146/annurev.ge.22.120188.002513 · DOI
  25. Flicek, 2012, Ensembl 2013, Nucleic Acids Res., 41, D48, 10.1093/nar/gks1236 · DOI
  26. Gamsjaeger, 2007, Sticky fingers: zinc-fingers as protein-recognition motifs, Trends Biochem Sci., 32, 63, 10.1016/j.tibs.2006.12.007 · DOI
  27. Gemayel, 2010, Variable tandem repeats accelerate evolution of coding and regulatory sequences, Annu Rev Genet., 44, 445, 10.1146/annurev-genet-072610-155046 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Gondo, 1998, Human megasatellite DNA RS447: copy-number polymorphisms and interspecies conservation, Genomics, 54, 39, 10.1006/geno.1998.5545 · DOI
  29. Groves, 1999, Topological characteristics of helical repeat protein, Curr Opin Struct Biol., 9, 383, 10.1016/S0959-440X(99)80052-9 · DOI
  30. Guindon, 2010, New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0, Syst Biol., 59, 307, 10.1093/sysbio/syq010 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Guindon, 2003, A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood, Syst Biol., 52, 696, 10.1080/10635150390235520 · DOI
  32. Hendy, 1982, Branch and bound algorithms to determine minimal evolutionary trees, Math Biosci., 59, 277, 10.1016/0025-5564(82)90027-X · DOI
  33. Hinch, 2011, The landscape of recombination in African Americans, Nature, 476, 170, 10.1038/nature10336 · DOI
  34. Hulpiau, 2013, New insights into the evolution of metazoan cadherins and catenins, Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci., 116, 71, 10.1016/B978-0-12-394311-8.00004-2 · DOI
  35. Javadi, 2013, Tandem-repeat proteins: regularity plus modularity equals design-ability, Curr Opin Struct Biol., 23, 622, 10.1016/j.sbi.2013.06.011 · DOI
  36. Jorda, 2009, T-REKS: identification of tandem REpeats in sequences with a K-meanS based algorithm, Bioinformatics, 25, 2632, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp482 · DOI
  37. Jorda, 2010, Protein tandem repeats—the more perfect, the less structured, FEBS J., 277, 2673, 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07684.x · DOI
  38. Kajava, 2012, Tandem repeats in proteins: from sequence to structure, J Struct Biol., 179, 279, 10.1016/j.jsb.2011.08.009 · DOI
  39. Lajoie, 2007, Duplication and inversion history of a tandemly repeated genes family, J Comput Biol., 14, 462, 10.1089/cmb.2007.A007 · DOI
  40. Leclercq, 2010, DNA slippage occurs at microsatellite loci without minimal threshold length in humans: a comparative genomic approach, Genome Biol Evol., 2, 325, 10.1093/gbe/evq023 · DOI
  41. Levdansky, 2007, Coding tandem repeats generate diversity in Aspergillus fumigatus genes, Eukaryot Cell., 6, 1380, 10.1128/EC.00229-06 · DOI
  42. Light, 2012, The evolution of filamin-a protein domain repeat perspective, J Struct Biol., 179, 289, 10.1016/j.jsb.2012.02.010 · DOI
  43. Loire, 2013, Evolution of coding microsatellites in primate genomes, Genome Biol Evol., 5, 283, 10.1093/gbe/evt003 · DOI
  44. MacDonald, 1993, A novel gene containing a trinucleotide repeat that is expanded and unstable on Huntington’s disease chromosomes, Cell, 72, 971, 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90585-E · DOI · Paper page
  45. Marcotte, 1999, A census of protein repeats, J Mol Biol., 293, 151, 10.1006/jmbi.1999.3136 · DOI · Paper page
  46. McKenzie, 2000, Distributions of cherries for two models of trees, Math Biosci., 164, 81, 10.1016/S0025-5564(99)00060-7 · DOI
  47. Mistry, 2013, The challenge of increasing Pfam coverage of the human proteome, Database, 10.1093/database/bat040 · DOI
  48. Mou, 2013, Functional analysis and expressional characterization of rice ankyrin repeat-containing protein, OsPIANK1, in basal defense against Magnaporthe oryzae attack, PLoS One, 8, e59699, 10.1371/journal.pone.0059699 · DOI
  49. Mularoni, 2010, Natural selection drives the accumulation of amino acid tandem repeats in human proteins, Genome Res., 20, 745, 10.1101/gr.101261.109 · DOI
  50. Newman, 2007, XSTREAM: a practical algorithm for identification and architecture modeling of tandem repeats in protein sequences, BMC Bioinformatics, 8, 382, 10.1186/1471-2105-8-382 · DOI
  51. Orr, 2007, Trinucleotide repeat disorders, Annu Rev Neurosci., 30, 575, 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113042 · DOI
  52. Popesco, 2006, Human lineage-specific amplification, selection, and neuronal expression of DUF1220 domains, Science, 313, 1304, 10.1126/science.1127980 · DOI
  53. Punta, 2011, The Pfam protein families database, Nucleic Acids Res., 40, D290, 10.1093/nar/gkr1065 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Richard, 2008, Comparative genomics and molecular dynamics of DNA repeats in eukaryotes, Microbiol Mol Biol Rev., 72, 686, 10.1128/MMBR.00011-08 · DOI
  55. Riegler, 2012, Tandem repeat markers as novel diagnostic tools for high resolution fingerprinting of Wolbachia (Review), BMC Microbiol., 12, S12, 10.1186/1471-2180-12-S1-S12 · DOI
  56. Sawyer, 1997, Natural variation in a Drosophila clock gene and temperature compensation, Science, 278, 2117, 10.1126/science.278.5346.2117 · DOI
  57. Schaper, 2012, Repeat or not repeat?—statistical validation of tandem repeat prediction in genomic sequences, Nucleic Acids Res., 40, 10005, 10.1093/nar/gks726 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Schlötterer, 2000, Evolutionary dynamics of microsatellite DNA, Chromosoma, 109, 365, 10.1007/s004120000089 · DOI
  59. Schröder, 1870, Vier combinatorische Probleme, Z Math Phys., 15, 361
  60. Schug, 1998, The distribution and frequency of microsatellite loci in Drosophila melanogaster, Mol Ecol., 7, 57, 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00304.x · DOI
  61. Simon, 2009, Tandem and cryptic amino acid repeats accumulate in disordered regions of proteins, Genome Biol., 10, R59, 10.1186/gb-2009-10-6-r59 · DOI
  62. Steel, 1993, Distributions on bicoloured binary trees arising from the principle of parsimony, Discrete Appl Math., 41, 245, 10.1016/0166-218X(90)90058-K · DOI
  63. Stirnimann, 2010, WD40 proteins propel cellular networks, Trends Biochem Sci., 35, 565, 10.1016/j.tibs.2010.04.003 · DOI
  64. Street, 2006, The role of introns in repeat protein gene formation, J Mol Biol., 360, 258, 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.05.024 · DOI
  65. Szalkowski, 2011, Markov models of amino acid substitution to study proteins with intrinsically disordered regions, PLoS One, 6, e20488, 10.1371/journal.pone.0020488 · DOI
  66. Szalkowski, 2013, Graph-based modeling of tandem repeats improves global multiple sequence alignment, Nucleic Acids Res., 41, e162, 10.1093/nar/gkt628 · DOI
  67. Szklarczyk, 2004, Tracking repeats using significance and transitivity, Bioinformatics, 20, i311, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth911 · DOI
  68. Tadepally, 2008, Evolution of C2H2-zinc finger genes and subfamilies in mammals: species-specific duplication and loss of clusters, genes and effector domains, BMC Evol Biol., 8, 176, 10.1186/1471-2148-8-176 · DOI
  69. Taylor, 2007, Dating divergences in the fungal tree of life: review and new analyses, Mycologia, 98, 838, 10.1080/15572536.2006.11832614 · DOI
  70. Thierry, 2010, Megasatellites: a new class of large tandem repeats discovered in the pathogenic yeast Candida glabrata, Cell Mol Life Sci., 67, 671, 10.1007/s00018-009-0216-y · DOI
  71. Tompa, 2003, Intrinsically unstructured proteins evolve by repeat expansion, Bioessays, 25, 847, 10.1002/bies.10324 · DOI
  72. Toth, 2000, Microsatellites in different eukaryotic genomes: survey and analysis, Genome Res., 10, 967, 10.1101/gr.10.7.967 · DOI
  73. Vergnaud, 2000, Minisatellites: mutability and genome architecture, Genome Res., 10, 899, 10.1101/gr.10.7.899 · DOI
  74. Verstrepen, 2005, Intragenic tandem repeats generate functional variability, Nat Genet., 37, 986, 10.1038/ng1618 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Vilella, 2009, EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: complete, duplication-aware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates, Genome Res., 19, 327, 10.1101/gr.073585.107 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Xu, 2011, Structure and function of WD40 domain proteins, Protein Cell, 2, 202, 10.1007/s13238-011-1018-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 65

Metadata

Authors
Schaper, E., Gascuel, O., & Anisimova, M.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-02-03
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
1132-1148
ISSN
  • 1537-1719
  • 0737-4038
DOI
10.1093/molbev/msu062
PMC
PMC3995336
Cited by
65
References
2
Language
en

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: Deep Conservation of Human Protein Tandem Repeats within the Eukaryotes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/molbev/msu062
The paper
Schaper, E., Gascuel, O., & Anisimova, M. (2014). Deep Conservation of Human Protein Tandem Repeats within the Eukaryotes. Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu062