ArticleGenome biology and evolution2021
Molecular Evolution of Antigen-Processing Genes in Salamanders: Do They Coevolve with MHC Class I Genes?
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Durvalumab plus anlotinib versus durvalumab alone as maintenance treatment in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (DURABLE): a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial and biomarker analysis.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Holostean genomes reveal evolutionary novelty in the vertebrate immunoproteasome that have implications for MHCI function.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Proteomic Stratification of Prognosis and Treatment Options for Small Cell Lung Cancer.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2024Article
- MHC architecture in amphibians - ancestral reconstruction, gene rearrangements and duplication patterns.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Coevolution between MHC Class I and Antigen-Processing Genes in Salamanders.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteins encoded by antigen-processing genes (APGs) prepare antigens for presentation by the major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC I) molecules. Coevolution between APGs and MHC I genes has been proposed as the ancestral gnathostome condition. The hypothesis predicts a single highly expressed MHC I gene and tight linkage between APGs and MHC I. In addition, APGs should evolve under positive selection, a consequence of the adaptive evolution in MHC I. The presence of multiple highly expressed MHC I genes in some teleosts, birds, and urodeles appears incompatible with the coevolution hypothesis. Here, we use urodele amphibians to test two key expectations derived from the coevolution hypothesis: 1) the linkage between APGs and MHC I was studied in Lissotriton newts and 2) the evidence for adaptive evolution in APGs was assessed using 42 urodele species comprising 21 genera from seven families. We demonstrated that five APGs (PSMB8, PSMB9, TAP1, TAP2, and TAPBP) are tightly linked (<0.5 cM) to MHC I. Although all APGs showed some codons under episodic positive selection, we did not find a pervasive signal of positive selection expected under the coevolution hypothesis. Gene duplications, putative gene losses, and divergent allelic lineages detected in some APGs demonstrate considerable evolutionary dynamics of APGs in salamanders. Overall, our results indicate that if coevolution between APGs and MHC I occurred in urodeles, it would be more complex than envisaged in the original formulation of the hypothesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.