The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Homology in classical and molecular biology.
Abstract
Hypotheses of homology are the basis of comparative morphology and comparative molecular biology. The kinds of homologous and nonhomologous relations in classical and molecular biology are explored through the three tests that may be applied to a hypothesis of homology: congruence, conjunction, and similarity. The same three tests apply in molecular comparisons and in morphology, and in each field they differentiate eight kinds of relation. These various relations are discussed and compared. The unit or standard of comparison differs in morphology and in molecular biology; in morphology it is the adult or life cycle, but with molecules it is the haploid genome. In morphology the congruence test is decisive in separating homology and nonhomology, whereas with molecular sequence data similarity is the decisive test. Consequences of this difference are that the boundary between homology and nonhomology is not the same in molecular biology as in morphology, that homology and synapomorphy can be equated in morphology but not in all molecular comparisons, and that there is no detected molecular equivalent of convergence. Since molecular homology may reflect either species phylogeny or gene phylogeny, there are more kinds of homologous relation between molecular sequences than in morphology. The terms paraxenology and plerology are proposed for two of these kinds--respectively, the consequence of multiple xenology and of gene conversion.
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
Molecular evolution of pancreatic-type ribonucleases.
(1986) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040393 · Cited by 81
Cited by
Orthologs, Paralogs, and Evolutionary Genomics
Koonin, E. V. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.114725 · Cited by 1,323
Horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes: Quantification and classification
Koonin, E. V., Makarova, K. S., & Aravind, L. (2001) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.709 · Cited by 1,126
CONCEPTS AND TESTS OF HOMOLOGY IN THE CLADISTIC PARADIGM
de Pinna, M. C. C. (1991) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00045.x · Cited by 1,108
Phenotypic Characterization and the Principles of Comparative Systematics
Tindall, B. J., Sikorski, J., Smibert, R. A., & Krieg, N. R. (2014) · Methods for General and Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1128/9781555817497.ch15 · Cited by 962
Phylogenetic Incongruence: Window into Genome History and Molecular Evolution
Wendel, J. F., & Doyle, J. J. (1998) · Molecular Systematics of Plants II · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5419-6_10 · Cited by 649
Metadata
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 603-25
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2152468914
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.03
- 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: Homology in classical and molecular biology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040523
- The paper
- Homology in classical and molecular biology. (1988). Molecular Biology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040523
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.