Meta-Research: Understudied genes are lost in a leaky pipeline between genome-wide assays and reporting of results
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Present-day publications on human genes primarily feature genes that already appeared in many publications prior to completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. These patterns persist despite the subsequent adoption of high-throughput technologies, which routinely identify novel genes associated with biological processes and disease. Although several hypotheses for bias in the selection of genes as research targets have been proposed, their explanatory powers have not yet been compared. Our analysis suggests that understudied genes are systematically abandoned in favor of better-studied genes between the completion of -omics experiments and the reporting of results. Understudied genes remain abandoned by studies that cite these -omics experiments. Conversely, we find that publications on understudied genes may even accrue a greater number of citations. Among 45 biological and experimental factors previously proposed to affect which genes are being studied, we find that 33 are significantly associated with the choice of hit genes presented in titles and abstracts of -omics studies. To promote the investigation of understudied genes, we condense our insights into a tool, find my understudied genes (FMUG), that allows scientists to engage with potential bias during the selection of hits. We demonstrate the utility of FMUG through the identification of genes that remain understudied in vertebrate aging. FMUG is developed in Flutter and is available for download at fmug.amaral.northwestern.edu as a MacOS/Windows app.
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
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.
Cites
Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., & Varmus, H. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1404402111 · Cited by 817 · see citing works
Border, R., Johnson, E. C., Evans, L. M., Smolen, A., Berley, N., Sullivan, P. F., & Keller, M. C. (2019) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
Unexplored therapeutic opportunities in the human genome
Oprea, T. I., Bologa, C. G., Brunak, S., Campbell, A., Gan, G. N., Gaulton, A., Gomez, S. M., Guha, R., Hersey, A., Holmes, J., et al. (2018) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2018.14 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
Large-scale investigation of the reasons why potentially important genes are ignored
Stoeger, T., Gerlach, M., Morimoto, R. I., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2006643 · Cited by 261 · see citing works
Self-citationA genome-wide atlas of co-essential modules assigns function to uncharacterized genes
Wainberg, M., Kamber, R. A., Balsubramani, A., Meyers, R. M., Sinnott-Armstrong, N., Hornburg, D., Jiang, L., Chan, J., Jian, R., Gu, M., et al. (2021) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00840-z · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Functional unknomics: Systematic screening of conserved genes of unknown function
Rocha, J. J., Jayaram, S. A., Stevens, T. J., Muschalik, N., Shah, R. D., Emran, S., Robles, C., Freeman, M., & Munro, S. (2023) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002222 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Life cycles of successful genes
Hoffmann, R., & Valencia, A. (2003) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/s0168-9525(02)00014-8 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Sinha, S., Eisenhaber, B., Jensen, L. J., Kalbuaji, B., & Eisenhaber, F. (2018) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201800093 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Byrne, J. A., Park, Y., Richardson, R. A. K., Pathmendra, P., Sun, M., & Stoeger, T. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkac1139 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationCOVID-19 research risks ignoring important host genes due to pre-established research patterns
Stoeger, T., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.61981 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lalit, F., & Jose, A. M. (2025) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkae1246 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Phan, A., Joshi, P., Kadelka, C., & Friedberg, I. (2025) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/baaf036 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Richardson, R., Tejedor Navarro, H., Amaral, L. A. N., & Stoeger, T.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University
- Corresponding author
- Stoeger, Thomas
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2024-03-28
- Volume
- 12
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10977968
- OpenAlex
- W4389782046
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9
- FWCI
- 1.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R00AG068544, K99AG068544)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U19AI135964)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008449)
- National Science Foundation (1956338)
- Simons Foundation (DMS-1764421)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Keywords
- omics data, citation patterns, publication bias
- MeSH terms
- Aging, Biological Assay, Humans, Physicians
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