The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repeated, Selection-Driven Genome Reduction of Accessory Genes in Experimental Populations
Open accessAbstract
Genome reduction has been observed in many bacterial lineages that have adapted to specialized environments. The extreme genome degradation seen for obligate pathogens and symbionts appears to be dominated by genetic drift. In contrast, for free-living organisms with reduced genomes, the dominant force is proposed to be direct selection for smaller, streamlined genomes. Most variation in gene content for these free-living species is of "accessory" genes, which are commonly gained as large chromosomal islands that are adaptive for specialized traits such as pathogenicity. It is generally unclear, however, whether the process of accessory gene loss is largely driven by drift or selection. Here we demonstrate that selection for gene loss, and not a shortened genome, per se, drove massive, rapid reduction of accessory genes. In just 1,500 generations of experimental evolution, 80% of populations of Methylobacterium extorquens AM1 experienced nearly parallel deletions removing up to 10% of the genome from a megaplasmid present in this strain. The absence of these deletion events in a mutation accumulation experiment suggested that selection, rather than drift, has dominated the process. Reconstructing these deletions confirmed that they were beneficial in their selective regimes, but led to decreased performance in alternative environments. These results indicate that selection can be crucial in eliminating unnecessary genes during the early stages of adaptation to a specialized environment.
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
Long-term survival during stationary phase: evolution and the GASP phenotype
Finkel, S. E. (2006) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1340 · Cited by 508
Cited by
CRISPR-CasΦ from huge phages is a hypercompact genome editor
Pausch, P., Al-Shayeb, B., Bisom-Rapp, E., Tsuchida, C. A., Li, Z., Cress, B. F., Knott, G. J., Jacobsen, S. E., Banfield, J. F., & Doudna, J. A. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb1400 · Cited by 555
Why prokaryotes have pangenomes
McInerney, J. O., McNally, A., & O'Connell, M. J. (2017) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.40 · Cited by 420
Exploring the costs of horizontal gene transfer
Baltrus, D. A. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.04.002 · Cited by 398
Black Queen evolution: the role of leakiness in structuring microbial communities
Morris, J. J. (2015) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.05.004 · Cited by 207
Defining Division of Labor in Microbial Communities
Giri, S., Waschina, S., Kaleta, C., & Kost, C. (2019) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2019.06.023 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, M.-C., & Marx, C. J.
- Venue
- PLoS Genetics
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2012-05-10
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e1002651
- ISSN
- 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7404
- OpenAlex
- W2165924016
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.39
- 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: Repeated, Selection-Driven Genome Reduction of Accessory Genes in Experimental Populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002651
- The paper
- Lee, M.-C., & Marx, C. J. (2012). Repeated, Selection-Driven Genome Reduction of Accessory Genes in Experimental Populations. PLoS Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002651
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.