Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of complete nuclear receptor sets from the human, Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila genomes

Open access
Maglich, Jodi M, Sluder, Ann, Guan, Xiaojun, Shi, Yunling, McKee, David D, Carrick, Kevin, Kamdar, Kim, Willson, Timothy M, Moore, John T·2001·Genome Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The availability of complete genome sequences enables all the members of a gene family to be identified without limitations imposed by temporal, spatial or quantitative aspects of mRNA expression. Using the nearly completed human genome sequence, we combined in silico and experimental approaches to define the complete human nuclear receptor (NR) set. This information was used to carry out a comparative genomic study of the NR superfamily. RESULTS: Our analysis of the human genome identified two novel NR sequences. Both these contained stop codons within the coding regions, indicating that both are pseudogenes. One (HNF4 gamma-related) contained no introns and expressed no detectable mRNA, whereas the other (FXR-related) produced mRNA at relatively high levels in testis. If translated, the latter is predicted to encode a short, non-functional protein. Our analysis indicates that there are fewer than 50 functional human NRs, dramatically fewer than in Caenorhabditis elegans and about twice as many as in Drosophila. Using the complete human NR set we made comparisons with the NR sets of C. elegans and Drosophila. Searches for the >200 NRs unique to C. elegans revealed no human homologs. The comparative analysis also revealed a Drosophila member of NR subfamily NR3, confirming an ancient metazoan origin for this subfamily. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides the basis for new insights into the evolution and functional relationships of NR superfamily members.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/gb-2001-2-8-research0029

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Authors
Maglich, J. M., Sluder, A., Guan, X., Shi, Y., McKee, D. D., Carrick, K., Kamdar, K., Willson, T. M., & Moore, J. T.
Venue
Genome Biology
Published
2001-07-24
Volume
2
Issue
8
Pages
RESEARCH0029-RESEARCH0029
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
OpenAlex
W2148217900
Cited by
266
References
4
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of complete nuclear receptor sets from the human, Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila genomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/gb-2001-2-8-research0029
The paper
Maglich, J. M., Sluder, A., Guan, X., Shi, Y., McKee, D. D., Carrick, K., Kamdar, K., Willson, T. M., & Moore, J. T. (2001). Comparison of complete nuclear receptor sets from the human, Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila genomes. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2001-2-8-research0029

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.