Cited by 482Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsGenome Rearrangement AlgorithmsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Reconstruction of the vertebrate ancestral genome reveals dynamic genome reorganization in early vertebrates

Open access
Nakatani, Yoichiro, Takeda, Hiroyuki, Kohara, Yuji, Morishita, Shinichi·2007·Genome Research

Abstract

Although several vertebrate genomes have been sequenced, little is known about the genome evolution of early vertebrates and how large-scale genomic changes such as the two rounds of whole-genome duplications (2R WGD) affected evolutionary complexity and novelty in vertebrates. Reconstructing the ancestral vertebrate genome is highly nontrivial because of the difficulty in identifying traces originating from the 2R WGD. To resolve this problem, we developed a novel method capable of pinning down remains of the 2R WGD in the human and medaka fish genomes using invertebrate tunicate and sea urchin genes to define ohnologs, i.e., paralogs produced by the 2R WGD. We validated the reconstruction using the chicken genome, which was not considered in the reconstruction step, and observed that many ancestral proto-chromosomes were retained in the chicken genome and had one-to-one correspondence to chicken microchromosomes, thereby confirming the reconstructed ancestral genomes. Our reconstruction revealed a contrast between the slow karyotype evolution after the second WGD and the rapid, lineage-specific genome reorganizations that occurred in the ancestral lineages of major taxonomic groups such as teleost fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and marsupials.

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.6316407

Cites

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?

  • Comparison of chromosome-scale genomes across vertebrates has clarified the timing and consequences of ancient whole-genome duplications that led to extant vertebrate genomes, supporting Ohno's hypothesis.

    “Comparison of chromosome-scale genomes across vertebrates has clarified the timing and consequences of the ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs) that led to extant vertebrate genomes (59–65), supporting Ohno's (66) hypothesis.”

    From Topological Approaches in Animal Comparative Genomics (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Dehal, P. and Boore, J.L. 2005. Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate. PLoS Biol. 3: e314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Furlong, R.F. and Holland, P.W. 2002. Were vertebrates octoploid? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 357: 531-544.
  3. Gibson, T.J. and Spring, J. 2000. Evidence in favour of ancient octaploidy in the vertebrate genome. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 28: 259-264.
  4. Green, D.M. and Sessions, S.K. 1991. Amphibian cytogenetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego.
  5. Ikuta, T., Yoshida, N., Satoh, N., and Saiga, H. 2004. Ciona intestinalis Hox gene cluster: Its dispersed structure and residual colinear expression in development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 15118-15123.
  6. Ohno, S. 1970. Evolution by gene duplication. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  7. Vandepoele, K., De Vos, W., Taylor, J.S., Meyer, A., and Van de Peer, Y. 2004. Major events in the genome evolution of vertebrates: Paranome age and size differ considerably between ray-finned fishes and land vertebrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 1638-1643.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakatani, Y., Takeda, H., Kohara, Y., & Morishita, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JP)
  • National Institute of Genetics (JP)
Corresponding author
Morishita, Shinichi
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2007-07-25
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
1254-1265
ISSN
1088-9051
OpenAlex
W4255893942
Cited by
482
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 39
FWCI
80.84
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency
  • Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
ancestral genome reconstruction, vertebrate genome evolution, whole-genome duplication, ohnologs, karyotype evolution, microchromosomes, genome reorganization, teleosts, amphibians, reptiles, marsupials, chicken genome
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Chromosomes, Humans, Karyotyping, Oryzias, Phylogeny, Species Specificity, Vertebrates, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Evolution, Molecular, 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