Cited by 1,698Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation

Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes

Open access
Rubin, Gerald M., Yandell, Mark D., Wortman, Jennifer R., Gabor, George L., Miklos, Nelson, Catherine R., Hariharan, Iswar K., Fortini, Mark E. +48 more·2000·Science

Abstract

A comparative analysis of the genomes of Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae-and the proteins they are predicted to encode-was undertaken in the context of cellular, developmental, and evolutionary processes. The nonredundant protein sets of flies and worms are similar in size and are only twice that of yeast, but different gene families are expanded in each genome, and the multidomain proteins and signaling pathways of the fly and worm are far more complex than those of yeast. The fly has orthologs to 177 of the 289 human disease genes examined and provides the foundation for rapid analysis of some of the basic processes involved in human disease.

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 · 10.1126/science.287.5461.2204

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • To the authors' knowledge, this is the first genome-wide survey and comparison of conserved elements in different groups of eukaryotic species, excluding comparisons primarily of proteomes.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first genome-wide survey and comparison of conserved elements in different groups of eukaryotic species (excluding comparisons primarily of proteomes; e.g., Rubin et al. 2000).”
  • Comparisons among fruit fly, nematode, and vertebrate genomes show greater genomic complexity in vertebrates as measured by gene content and structure, while many genes and networks are shared across bilaterians.

    “Comparisons (4-6) between fruit fly, nematode, and vertebrate genomes reveal greater genomic complexity in the vertebrates (and other deuterostomes (7,8)) as measured by gene content and structure, but at the same time show that many genes and networks are shared across bilaterians.”

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 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Hynes RO. Trends Cell Biol. 1999;9:M33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [54]Miklos GLG. J Am Acad Arts Sci. 1998;127:197. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rubin, G. M., Yandell, M. D., Wortman, J. R., Gabor, G. L., Miklos, Nelson, C. R., Hariharan, I. K., Fortini, M. E., Li, P. W., Apweiler, R., Fleischmann, W., Cherry, J. M., Henikoff, S., Skupski, M. P., Misra, S., Ashburner, M., Birney, E., Boguski, M. S., Brody, T., Brokstein, P., Celniker, S. E., Chervitz, S. A., Coates, D., Cravchik, A., Gabrielian, A., Galle, R. F., Gelbart, W. M., George, R. A., Goldstein, L. S. B., Gong, F., Guan, P., Harris, N. L., Hay, B. A., Hoskins, R. A., Li, J., Li, Z., Hynes, R. O., Jones, S. J. M., Kuehl, P. M., Lemaitre, B., Littleton, J. T., Morrison, D. K., Mungall, C., O'Farrell, P. H., Pickeral, O. K., Shue, C., Vosshall, L. B., Zhang, J., Zhao, Q., Zheng, X. H., Zhong, F., Zhong, W., Gibbs, R., Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., & Lewis, S.
Affiliations
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Celera Genomics, Rockville, MD, 20850 USA.
  • GenetixXpress, 78 Pacific Road, Palm Beach, Sydney, Australia 2108.
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Cape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory / Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa (ZA)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • Neomorphic, 2612 Eighth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, USA.
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • BC Cancer Agency (CA)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Centre de Génétique Moléculaire, CNRS, 91198 Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Venue
Science
Published
2000-03-24
Volume
287
Issue
5461
Pages
2204-2215
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2106013076
Cited by
1,698
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 55
FWCI
75.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG000750, P4IHG00739, P50-HG00750)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM037193, R01GM060988)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS040296)
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 › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Keywords
comparative genomics, eukaryotic genomes, Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, gene family expansion, multidomain proteins, signaling pathways, orthologs, human disease genes, model organisms
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Adhesion, Cell Cycle, Drosophila melanogaster, Biological Evolution, Fungal Proteins, Multigene Family, Genetics, Medical, Humans, Immunity, Neoplasms, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Signal Transduction, Helminth Proteins, Genome, Caenorhabditis elegans, Apoptosis, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Insect Proteins, Genes, Duplicate, Proteome, Genetic Diseases, Inborn

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