| Title |
Rates of DNA Duplication and Mitochondrial DNA Insertion in the Human Genome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00239-003-2485-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Douda Bensasson, Marcus W. Feldman, Dmitri A. Petrov |
| Abstract |
The hundreds of mitochondrial pseudogenes in the human nuclear genome sequence (numts) constitute an excellent system for studying and dating DNA duplications and insertions. These pseudogenes are associated with many complete mitochondrial genome sequences and through those with a good fossil record. By comparing individual numts with primate and other mammalian mitochondrial genome sequences, we estimate that these numts arose continuously over the last 58 million years. Our pairwise comparisons between numts suggest that most human numts arose from different mitochondrial insertion events and not by DNA duplication within the nuclear genome. The nuclear genome appears to accumulate mtDNA insertions at a rate high enough to predict within-population polymorphism for the presence/absence of many recent mtDNA insertions. Pairwise analysis of numts and their flanking DNA produces an estimate for the DNA duplication rate in humans of 2.2 x 10(-9) per numt per year. Thus, a nucleotide site is about as likely to be involved in a duplication event as it is to change by point substitution. This estimate of the rate of DNA duplication of noncoding DNA is based on sequences that are not in duplication hotspots, and is close to the rate reported for functional genes in other species. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 101 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 27% |
| Researcher | 23 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 65 | 58% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,372,727
of 23,482,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#85
of 1,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,916
of 50,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,482,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 50,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.