The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selection in the evolution of gene duplications
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Gene duplications have a major role in the evolution of new biological functions. Theoretical studies often assume that a duplication per se is selectively neutral and that, following a duplication, one of the gene copies is freed from purifying (stabilizing) selection, which creates the potential for evolution of a new function. RESULTS: In search of systematic evidence of accelerated evolution after duplication, we used data from 26 bacterial, six archaeal, and seven eukaryotic genomes to compare the mode and strength of selection acting on recently duplicated genes (paralogs) and on similarly diverged, unduplicated orthologous genes in different species. We find that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions (Kn/Ks) in most paralogous pairs is <<1 and that paralogs typically evolve at similar rates, without significant asymmetry, indicating that both paralogs produced by a duplication are subject to purifying selection. This selection is, however, substantially weaker than the purifying selection affecting unduplicated orthologs that have diverged to the same extent as the analyzed paralogs. Most of the recently duplicated genes appear to be involved in various forms of environmental response; in particular, many of them encode membrane and secreted proteins. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis indicate that recently duplicated paralogs evolve faster than orthologs with the same level of divergence and similar functions, but apparently do not experience a phase of neutral evolution. We hypothesize that gene duplications that persist in an evolving lineage are beneficial from the time of their origin, due primarily to a protein dosage effect in response to variable environmental conditions; duplications are likely to give rise to new functions at a later phase of their evolution once a higher level of divergence is reached.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
Altschul, S. (1997) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 · Cited by 73,302
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G., & Gibson, T. J. (1994) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 · Cited by 64,617
Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, C. F. G. R., Lander, E. S., Linton, L. M., Birren, B., Nusbaum, C., Zody, M. C., Baldwin, J., Devon, K., Dewar, K., et al. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35057062 · Cited by 24,216
Self-citationMolecular Evolution and Phylogenetics
Nei, M., & Kumar, S. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135848.001.0001 · Cited by 8,012
Ohno, S. (1970) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-86659-3 · Cited by 7,833
The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
Kimura, M. (1979) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1179-98 · Cited by 7,666
The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
Kimura, M. (1983) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511623486 · Cited by 6,347
The Genome Sequence of Drosophila melanogaster
Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A., Gocayne, J. D., Amanatides, P. G., Scherer, S. E., Li, P. W., Hoskins, R. A., Galle, R. F., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5461.2185 · Cited by 5,929
The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1151 · Cited by 4,988
An introduction to population genetics theory
Crow, J. F., & Kimura, M. (1970) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,223
Cited by
Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Kellis, M., Birren, B. W., & Lander, E. S. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02424 · Cited by 1,522
Orthologs, Paralogs, and Evolutionary Genomics
Koonin, E. V. (2005) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.39.073003.114725 · Cited by 1,323
Self-citationThe evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models
Innan, H., & Kondrashov, F. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2689 · Cited by 1,307
Self-citationTurning a hobby into a job: How duplicated genes find new functions
Conant, G. C., & Wolfe, K. H. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2482 · Cited by 1,281
A structural variation reference for medical and population genetics
Collins, R. L., Brand, H., Karczewski, K. J., Zhao, X., Alföldi, J., Francioli, L. C., Khera, A. V., Lowther, C., Gauthier, L. D., Wang, H., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2287-8 · Cited by 1,037
Metadata
- Authors
- Kondrashov, F. A., Rogozin, I. B., Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V.
- Venue
- Genome Biology
- Published
- 2002-01-14
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- RESEARCH0008-RESEARCH0008
- ISSN
- 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-760X
- OpenAlex
- W2154406573
- Cited by
- 782
- References
- 84
- FWCI
- 20.84
- 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: Selection in the evolution of gene duplications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/gb-2002-3-2-research0008
- The paper
- Kondrashov, F. A., Rogozin, I. B., Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V. (2002). Selection in the evolution of gene duplications. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2002-3-2-research0008
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.