Cited by 164Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFungal and yeast genetics research

Large-Scale Taxonomic Profiling of Eukaryotic Model Organisms: A Comparison of Orthologous Proteins Encoded by the Human, Fly, Nematode, and Yeast Genomes

Open access
Mushegian, Arcady R., Garey, James R., Martin, Jason, Liu, Leo X.·1998·Genome Research

Abstract

Comparisons of DNA and protein sequences between humans and model organisms, including the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, are a significant source of information about the function of human genes and proteins in both normal and disease states. Important questions regarding cross-species sequence comparison remain unanswered, including (1) the fraction of the metabolic, signaling, and regulatory pathways that is shared by humans and the various model organisms; and (2) the validity of functional inferences based on sequence homology. We addressed these questions by analyzing the available fractions of human, fly, nematode, and yeast genomes for orthologous protein-coding genes, applying strict criteria to distinguish between candidate orthologous and paralogous proteins. Forty-two quartets of proteins could be identified as candidate orthologs. Twenty-four Drosophila protein sequences were more similar to their human orthologs than the corresponding nematode proteins. Analysis of sequence substitutions and evolutionary distances in this data set revealed that most C. elegans genes are evolving more rapidly than Drosophila genes, suggesting that unequal evolutionary rates may contribute to the differences in similarity to human protein sequences. The available fraction of Drosophila proteins appears to lack representatives of many protein families and domains, reflecting the relative paucity of genomic data from this species.

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.8.6.590

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • The seven genes were chosen because they had previously been shown to support the monophyly of Ecdysozoa or did not significantly support an alternative arrangement and/or had shown potential clock-like behavior.

    “These genes were chosen because they had previously been shown to support the monophyly of Ecdysozoa or did not significantly support an alternative arrangement (9, 22) and ∕ or had shown potential clock-like behavior (23).”

    From Estimating metazoan divergence times with a molecular clock (2004) · cites this paper as [22]

    In “Different Proteins Generate Different Phylogenetic Tree Topologies” (page unavailable), the paper reports that 11 protein alignments support tree B, the Ecdysozoa arrangement. It does not identify the citing authors’ seven genes or establish that those particular genes supported Ecdysozoa or failed to significantly support an alternative. The clock-like-behavior clause is attached to citation 23, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [35]35. Waterston, R.H. 1997. The Genome. In C. elegans II (ed. D.L. Riddle, T. Blumenthal, B.J. Meyer, and J.R. Priess), pp. 23-46. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mushegian, A. R., Garey, J. R., Martin, J., & Liu, L. X.
Affiliations
University of South Florida (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
1998-06-01
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
590-598
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2123172705
Cited by
164
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
orthologous proteins, Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, paralogous proteins, sequence homology, evolutionary rates, comparative genomics
MeSH terms
Animals, Drosophila melanogaster, Humans, Phylogeny, Proteins, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Genome, Genome, Fungal, Caenorhabditis elegans, Genes, Helminth, Genes, Insect, Evolution, Molecular, Computational Biology

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