PreprintCited by 84Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesEvolution and Genetic DynamicsChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Pervasive positive selection on duplicated and nonduplicated vertebrate protein coding genes

Open access
Studer, Romain A., Penel, Simon, Duret, Laurent, Robinson-Rechavi, Marc·2008·Genome Research

Abstract

A stringent branch-site codon model was used to detect positive selection in vertebrate evolution. We show that the test is robust to the large evolutionary distances involved. Positive selection was detected in 77% of 884 genes studied. Most positive selection concerns a few sites on a single branch of the phylogenetic tree: Between 0.9% and 4.7% of sites are affected by positive selection depending on the branches. No functional category was overrepresented among genes under positive selection. Surprisingly, whole genome duplication had no effect on the prevalence of positive selection, whether the fish-specific genome duplication or the two rounds at the origin of vertebrates. Thus positive selection has not been limited to a few gene classes, or to specific evolutionary events such as duplication, but has been pervasive during vertebrate evolution.

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 · 10.1101/gr.076992.108

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Studer, R. A., Penel, S., Duret, L., & Robinson-Rechavi, M.
Affiliations
  • SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2008-06-18
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
1393-1402
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052743506
Cited by
84
References
90
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (116798)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
positive selection, vertebrate evolution, gene duplication, whole-genome duplication, protein-coding genes, vertebrate origin
MeSH terms
Animals, Codon, Selection, Genetic, Vertebrates, Computational Biology, Gene Duplication

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