ArticleGenome biology and evolution2024
Expression of Random Sequences and de novo Evolved Genes From the Mouse in Human Cells Reveals Functional Diversity and Specificity.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Reassessment of Positive Growth Effects of Expressed Random Sequence Clones in E. coli Suggests Direct Adaptive Functions.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- De Novo Genes: Current Status and Future Goals.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Emergence of antiphage functions from random sequence libraries reveals mechanisms of gene birth.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- DeNoFo: a file format and toolkit for standardized, comparable de novo gene annotation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Proteins that emerge de novo from noncoding DNA could negatively or positively influence cellular physiology in the sense of providing a possible adaptive advantage. Here, we employ two approaches to study such effects in a human cell line by expressing random sequences and mouse de novo genes that lack homologs in the human genome. We show that both approaches lead to differential growth effects of the cell clones dependent on the sequences they express. For the random sequences, 53% of the clones decreased in frequency, and about 8% increased in frequency in a joint growth experiment. Of the 14 mouse de novo genes tested in a similar joint growth experiment, 10 decreased, and 3 increased in frequency. When individually analysed, each mouse de novo gene triggers a unique transcriptomic response in the human cells, indicating mostly specific rather than generalized effects. Structural analysis of the de novo gene open reading frames (ORFs) reveals a range of intrinsic disorder scores and/or foldability into alpha-helices or beta sheets, but these do not correlate with their effects on the growth of the cells. Our results indicate that de novo evolved ORFs could easily become integrated into cellular regulatory pathways, since most interact with components of these pathways and could therefore become directly subject to positive selection if the general conditions allow this.
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.