CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gene Duplication: The Genomic Trade in Spare Parts

Hurles, Matthew·2004·PLoS Biology
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206PMC PMC449868
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Mechanism of Gene Duplication A two-exon gene is flanked by two Alu elements and a neighbouring replication termination site. Recombination between the two Alu elements leads to a tandem duplication event, as does a replication error instigated by the replication termination site. Retrotransposition of the mRNA of the gene leads to the random integration of an intron-less paralogue at a distinct genomic location.
Figure 1 Mechanism of Gene Duplication A two-exon gene is flanked by two Alu elements and a neighbouring replication termination site. Recombination between the two Alu elements leads to a tandem duplication event, as does a replication error instigated by the replication termination site. Retrotransposition of the mRNA of the gene leads to the random integration of an intron-less paralogue at a distinct genomic location.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Fates of Duplicate Genes A new duplication in a gene (blue) with two tissue-specific promoters (arrows) arises in a population of single copy genes. Fixation within the population results in a minority of cases. After fixation, one gene is inactivated (degradation) or assumes a new function (neofunctionalization), or the expression pattern of the original gene is partitioned between the two duplicates as one promoter is silenced in each duplicate in a complementary manner (subfunctionalization).
Figure 2 Fates of Duplicate Genes A new duplication in a gene (blue) with two tissue-specific promoters (arrows) arises in a population of single copy genes. Fixation within the population results in a minority of cases. After fixation, one gene is inactivated (degradation) or assumes a new function (neofunctionalization), or the expression pattern of the original gene is partitioned between the two duplicates as one promoter is silenced in each duplicate in a complementary manner (subfunctionalization).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Concerted Evolution Different gene conversion events homogenize minimally diverged duplicate genes in each daughter species (A and B), with the result that while paralogues are highly similar, orthologues diverge over time.
Figure 3 Concerted Evolution Different gene conversion events homogenize minimally diverged duplicate genes in each daughter species (A and B), with the result that while paralogues are highly similar, orthologues diverge over time.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bailey, 2003, Am J Hum Genet, 73, 823, 10.1086/378594 · DOI
  2. Dorus, 2003, Hum Mol Genet, 12, 1643, 10.1093/hmg/ddg185 · DOI
  3. Emes, 2003, Hum Mol Genet, 12, 701, 10.1093/hmg/ddg078 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Force, 1999, Genetics, 151, 1531, 10.1093/genetics/151.4.1531 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Fortna, 2004, PLoS Biol, 2, e207, 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020207 · DOI
  6. Friedman, 2003, Mol Biol Evol, 20, 154, 10.1093/molbev/msg017 · DOI
  7. Koszul, 2004, EMBO J, 23, 234, 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600024 · DOI
  8. Lynch, 2000, Science, 290, 1151, 10.1126/science.290.5494.1151 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Makova, 2003, Genome Res, 13, 1638, 10.1101/gr.1133803 · DOI
  10. Tayebi, 2003, Am J Hum Genet, 72, 519, 10.1086/367850 · DOI
  11. Torrents, 2003, Genome Res, 13, 2559, 10.1101/gr.1455503 · DOI
  12. Van de Peer, 2003, J Struct Funct Genomics, 3, 65, 10.1023/A:1022652814749 · DOI
  13. Zhang, 1998, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 95, 3708, 10.1073/pnas.95.7.3708 · DOI
  14. Zhang, 2003, Genome Biol, 4, R56, 10.1186/gb-2003-4-9-r56 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hurles, M.
Venue
PLoS Biology
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2004-07-13
Volume
2
Issue
7
Pages
e206
ISSN
1545-7885
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206
PMC
PMC449868
Cited by
298
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

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