↓ Skip to main content

All duplicates are not equal: the difference between small-scale and genome duplication

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
165 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
All duplicates are not equal: the difference between small-scale and genome duplication
Published in
Genome Biology, October 2007
DOI 10.1186/gb-2007-8-10-r209
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke Hakes, John W Pinney, Simon C Lovell, Stephen G Oliver, David L Robertson

Abstract

Genes in populations are in constant flux, being gained through duplication and occasionally retained or, more frequently, lost from the genome. In this study we compare pairs of identifiable gene duplicates generated by small-scale (predominantly single-gene) duplications with those created by a large-scale gene duplication event (whole-genome duplication) in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We find a number of quantifiable differences between these data sets. Whole-genome duplicates tend to exhibit less profound phenotypic effects when deleted, are functionally less divergent, and are associated with a different set of functions than their small-scale duplicate counterparts. At first sight, either of these latter two features could provide a plausible mechanism by which the difference in dispensability might arise. However, we uncover no evidence suggesting that this is the case. We find that the difference in dispensability observed between the two duplicate types is limited to gene products found within protein complexes, and probably results from differences in the relative strength of the evolutionary pressures present following each type of duplication event. Genes, and the proteins they specify, originating from small-scale and whole-genome duplication events differ in quantifiable ways. We infer that this is not due to their association with different functional categories; rather, it is a direct result of biases in gene retention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 4 2%
Canada 3 2%
Sweden 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 144 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 26%
Researcher 32 20%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Professor 10 6%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 25 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 85 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 23%
Computer Science 4 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 1%
Chemical Engineering 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 26 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,600,874
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#3,854
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,727
of 84,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#38
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 84,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.