PreprintCited by 688Genome Rearrangement AlgorithmsChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Zebrafish Comparative Genomics and the Origins of Vertebrate Chromosomes

Open access
Postlethwait, John H., Woods, Ian G., Ngo-Hazelett, Phuong, Yan, Yi-Lin, Kelly, Peter D., Chu, Felicia, Huang, Hui, Hill-Force, Alicia +1 more·2000·Genome Research

Abstract

To help understand mechanisms of vertebrate genome evolution, we have compared zebrafish and tetrapod gene maps. It has been suggested that translocations are fixed more frequently than inversions in mammals. Gene maps showed that blocks of conserved syntenies between zebrafish and humans were large, but gene orders were frequently inverted and transposed. This shows that intrachromosomal rearrangements have been fixed more frequently than translocations. Duplicated chromosome segments suggest that a genome duplication occurred in ray-fin phylogeny, and comparative studies suggest that this event happened deep in the ancestry of teleost fish. Consideration of duplicate chromosome segments shows that at least 20% of duplicated gene pairs may be retained from this event. Despite genome duplication, zebrafish and humans have about the same number of chromosomes, and zebrafish chromosomes are mosaically orthologous to several human chromosomes. Is this because of an excess of chromosome fissions in the human lineage or an excess of chromosome fusions in the zebrafish lineage? Comparative analysis suggests that an excess of chromosome fissions in the tetrapod lineage may account for chromosome numbers and provides histories for several human chromosomes.

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.164800

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Analysis does not support extrapolating accelerated molecular evolution documented in flies and echinoderms to all invertebrates.

    “While accelerated rates of molecular evolution have been documented in flies and echinoderms (43) relative to vertebrates, our analysis does not support the extrapolation of these higher rates to all invertebrates.”
  • Panther ontology annotations of the inferred ancestral gene set show significant over- and under-representations in each of the three categories of novelty (novel sequence, novel domain, and novel combination of domains).

    “Panther ontology annotations of the inferred ancestral gene set have been tested for enrichment in each of the three categories of novelty (novel sequence, novel domain, and novel combination of domains), as described in section S8, and significant over-and under-representations have been tabulated here”

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
Postlethwait, J. H., Woods, I. G., Ngo-Hazelett, P., Yan, Y.-L., Kelly, P. D., Chu, F., Huang, H., Hill-Force, A., & Talbot, W. S.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2000-12-01
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
1890-1902
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2066187005
Cited by
688
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 26
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Collections - Ithaca College Library (Ithaca College) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9728587, 9602828)
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust
  • University of Oregon
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dk055378-04)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK55378)
  • National Center for Research Resources (R01RR010715, R01RR012349, R01RR12349, R01 RR10715)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Keywords
zebrafish, comparative genomics, syntenic blocks, chromosomal inversions, translocation, intrachromosomal rearrangements, whole-genome duplication, teleosts, Actinopterygii, duplicate genes, chromosome fission, chromosome fusion, gene order
MeSH terms
Animals, Chromosome Mapping, Chromosomes, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 10, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 11, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 15, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 17, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 19, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 9, Genetic Markers, Humans, Genetic Linkage, Models, Genetic, Zebrafish, 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