↓ Skip to main content

DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Genetica, May 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila
Published in
Genetica, May 2002
DOI 10.1023/a:1016076215168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dmitri A. Petrov

Abstract

Mutation is often said to be random. Although it must be true that mutation is ignorant about the adaptive needs of the organism and thus is random relative to them as a rule, mutation is not truly random in other respects. Nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, duplications and other types of mutation occur at different rates and are effected by different mechanisms. Moreover the rates of different mutations vary from organism to organism. Differences in mutational biases, along with natural selection, could impact gene and genome evolution in important ways. For instance, several recent studies have suggested that differences in insertion/deletion biases lead to profound differences in the rate of DNA loss in animals and that this difference per se can lead to significant changes in genome size. In particular, Drosophila melanogaster appears to have a very high rate of deletions and the correspondingly high rate of DNA loss and a very compact genome. To assess the validity of these studies we must first assess the validity of the measurements of indel biases themselves. Here I demonstrate the robustness of indel bias measurements in Drosophila, by comparing indel patterns in different types of nonfunctional sequences. The indel pattern and the high rate of DNA loss appears to be shared by all known nonfunctional sequences, both euchromatic and heterochromatic, transposable and non-transposable, repetitive and unique. Unfortunately all available nonfunctional sequences are untranscribed and thus effects of transcription on indel bias cannot be assessed. I also discuss in detail why it is unlikely that natural selection for or against DNA loss significantly affects current estimates of indel biases.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 87 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Researcher 22 22%
Student > Master 11 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 70%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 12%
Unspecified 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 12 12%
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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#152
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,861
of 127,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 127,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them