Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 496

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extent of Gene Duplication in the Genomes of Drosophila, Nematode, and Yeast

Open access
Gu, Zhenglong, Cavalcanti, Andre, Chen, Feng-Chi, Bouman, Peter, Li, Wen-Hsiung·2002·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

We conducted a detailed analysis of duplicate genes in three complete genomes: yeast, Drosophila, and Caenorhabditis elegans. For two proteins belonging to the same family we used the criteria: (1) their similarity is > or =I (I = 30% if L > or = 150 a.a. and I = 0.01n + 4.8L(-0.32(1 + exp(-L/1000))) if L < 150 a.a., where n = 6 and L is the length of the alignable region), and (2) the length of the alignable region between the two sequences is > or = 80% of the longer protein. We found it very important to delete isoforms (caused by alternative splicing), same genes with different names, and proteins derived from repetitive elements. We estimated that there were 530, 674, and 1,219 protein families in yeast, Drosophila, and C. elegans, respectively, so, as expected, yeast has the smallest number of duplicate genes. However, for the duplicate pairs with the number of substitutions per synonymous site (K(S)) < 0.01, Drosophila has only seven pairs, whereas yeast has 58 pairs and nematode has 153 pairs. After considering the possible effects of codon usage bias and gene conversion, these numbers became 6, 55, and 147, respectively. Thus, Drosophila appears to have much fewer young duplicate genes than do yeast and nematode. The larger numbers of duplicate pairs with K(S) < 0.01 in yeast and C. elegans were probably largely caused by block duplications. At any rate, it is clear that the genome of Drosophila melanogaster has undergone few gene duplications in the recent past and has much fewer gene families than C. elegans.

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/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004079

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 496

Metadata

Authors
Gu, Z., Cavalcanti, A., Chen, F.-C., Bouman, P., & Li, W.-H.
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2002-03-01
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
256-262
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2024172842
Cited by
496
References
4
FWCI
21.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Extent of Gene Duplication in the Genomes of Drosophila, Nematode, and Yeast. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004079
The paper
Gu, Z., Cavalcanti, A., Chen, F.-C., Bouman, P., & Li, W.-H. (2002). Extent of Gene Duplication in the Genomes of Drosophila, Nematode, and Yeast. Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004079

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.