Cited by 4,988Chromosomal and Genetic VariationsEvolution and Genetic DynamicsGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes

Lynch, Michael, Conery, John S.·2000·Science

Abstract

Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.290.5494.1151

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Analyzing the mechanisms that generate new genes offers critical insights into how new biological functions and innovative adaptations have developed over the course of evolution.

    “Analyzing the mechanisms that generate new genes—from duplication and de novo expression to the reorganization of genomic elements—offers critical insights into how new biological functions and innovative adaptations have developed over the course of evolution [27,108].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S.
Affiliations
University of Oregon (US)
Corresponding author
Lynch, Michael
Venue
Science
Published
2000-11-10
Volume
290
Issue
5494
Pages
1151-1155
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2019591778
Cited by
4,988
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 177 · 2025: 201 · 2024: 261 · 2023: 267 · 2022: 320 · 2021: 278 · 2020: 251 · 2019: 208 · 2018: 192 · 2017: 193 · 2016: 179 · 2015: 190 · 2014: 228 · 2013: 161 · 2012: 198
FWCI
160.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM36827, R01GM036827)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
gene duplication, duplicate genes, relaxed selection, purifying selection, neutral evolution, gene silencing, evolutionary innovation, speciation, eukaryotic genomes
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Chickens, Drosophila melanogaster, Humans, Models, Genetic, Mutation, Probability, Proteins, Oryza, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Selection, Genetic, Stochastic Processes, Time Factors, Databases, Factual, Genome, Caenorhabditis elegans, Arabidopsis, Evolution, Molecular, Amino Acid Substitution, Genes, Duplicate, Gene Duplication, Gene Silencing, 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