PreprintCited by 162Genome Rearrangement AlgorithmsChromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Comparative architectures of mammalian and chicken genomes reveal highly variable rates of genomic rearrangements across different lineages

Open access
Bourque, Guillaume, Zdobnov, Evgeny M., Bork, Peer, Pevzner, Pavel A., Tesler, Glenn·2005·Genome Research

Abstract

Molecular evolution studies are usually based on the analysis of individual genes and thus reflect only small-range variations in genomic sequences. A complementary approach is to study the evolutionary history of rearrangements in entire genomes based on the analysis of gene orders. The progress in whole genome sequencing provides an unprecedented level of detailed sequence data to infer genome rearrangements through comparative approaches. The comparative analysis of recently sequenced rodent genomes with the human genome revealed evidence for a larger number of rearrangements than previously thought and led to the reconstruction of the putative genomic architecture of the murid rodent ancestor, while the architecture of the ancestral mammalian genome and the rate of rearrangements in the human lineage remained unknown. Sequencing the chicken genome provides an opportunity to reconstruct the architecture of the ancestral mammalian genome by using chicken as an outgroup. Our analysis reveals a very low rate of rearrangements and, in particular, interchromosomal rearrangements in chicken, in the early mammalian ancestor, or in both. The suggested number of interchromosomal rearrangements between the mammalian ancestor and chicken, during an estimated 500 million years of evolution, only slightly exceeds the number of interchromosomal rearrangements that happened in the mouse lineage, over the course of about 87 million years.

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.3002305

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Fungi are not by themselves a sufficient outgroup for characterizing history of eumetazoan introns because putative ancient eukaryotic introns shared by animals and plants have been lost in fungi.

    “Note that although fungi and animals are phylogenetically closer to each other than either group is to plants, fungi are not by themselves a sufficient outgroup for characterizing the history of eumetazoan introns, since there are putative ancient eukaryotic introns shared by modern animals and plants that have evidently been lost in fungi (46).”
  • The remainder of eumetazoan introns appear to be shared only by animals.

    “Althought many eumetazoan introns are evidently of ancient eukaryotic origin (46) --for example, nearly 26% of human and Nematostella introns are conserved with Arabidopsis, and 24% with Cryptococcus --the remainder appear to be shared only by animals.”

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

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bourque, G., Zdobnov, E. M., Bork, P., Pevzner, P. A., & Tesler, G.
Affiliations
  • Genome Institute of Singapore (SG)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2004-12-08
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
98-110
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006746194
Cited by
162
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
genome rearrangement, comparative genomics, gene order, chicken genome, interchromosomal rearrangements, rodent genomes, human genome, genome organization
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Chromosomes, Chromosomes, Human, Genes, Humans, Genetic Variation, Gene Rearrangement, Genome, Evolution, Molecular, Synteny, Mice, Rats

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