↓ Skip to main content

Expansion of gene clusters, circular orders, and the shortest Hamiltonian path problem

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Mathematical Biology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Expansion of gene clusters, circular orders, and the shortest Hamiltonian path problem
Published in
Journal of Mathematical Biology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00285-017-1197-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonja J. Prohaska, Sarah J. Berkemer, Fabian Gärtner, Thomas Gatter, Nancy Retzlaff, The Students of the Graphs and Biological Networks Lab 2017, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen, Peter F. Stadler

Abstract

Clusters of paralogous genes such as the famous HOX cluster of developmental transcription factors tend to evolve by stepwise duplication of its members, often involving unequal crossing over. Gene conversion and possibly other mechanisms of concerted evolution further obfuscate the phylogenetic relationships. As a consequence, it is very difficult or even impossible to disentangle the detailed history of gene duplications in gene clusters. In this contribution we show that the expansion of gene clusters by unequal crossing over as proposed by Walter Gehring leads to distinctive patterns of genetic distances, namely a subclass of circular split systems. Furthermore, when the gene cluster was left undisturbed by genome rearrangements, the shortest Hamiltonian paths with respect to genetic distances coincide with the genomic order. This observation can be used to detect ancient genomic rearrangements of gene clusters and to distinguish gene clusters whose evolution was dominated by unequal crossing over within genes from those that expanded through other mechanisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 38%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Computer Science 1 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Mathematical Biology
#449
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,694
of 440,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Mathematical Biology
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 440,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.