↓ Skip to main content

Why and how genetic canalization evolves in gene regulatory networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why and how genetic canalization evolves in gene regulatory networks
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12862-016-0801-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Estelle Rünneburger, Arnaud Le Rouzic

Abstract

Genetic canalization reflects the capacity of an organism's phenotype to remain unchanged in spite of mutations. As selection on genetic canalization is weak and indirect, whether or not genetic canalization can reasonably evolve in complex genetic architectures is still an open question. In this paper, we use a quantitative model of gene regulatory network to describe the conditions in which substantial canalization is expected to emerge in a stable environment. Through an individual-based simulation framework, we confirmed that most parameters associated with the network topology (complexity and size of the network) have less influence than mutational parameters (rate and size of mutations) on the evolution of genetic canalization. We also established that selecting for extreme phenotypic optima (nil or full gene expression) leads to much higher canalization levels than selecting for intermediate expression levels. Overall, constrained networks evolve less canalization than networks in which some genes could evolve freely (i.e. without direct stabilizing selection pressure on gene expression). Taken together, these results lead us to propose a two-fold mechanism involved in the evolution of genetic canalization in gene regulatory networks: the shrinkage of mutational target (useless genes are virtually removed from the network) and redundancy in gene regulation (so that some regulatory factors can be lost without affecting gene expression).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 29%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 33%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,697
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,179
of 319,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#63
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.