2R hypothesis: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Ohno's argument: Journal cites:, using AWB (8060)
Euglossa (talk | contribs)
Significant update to explain the paralogy controversy and to bring up-to-date with data from genome-wide analyses
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''2R hypothesis''' or '''Ohno's hypothesis''', first proposed by [[Susumu Ohno]] in 1970,<ref name=Ohno70>Ohno S (1970). ''Evolution by Gene Duplication.'' London: Allen and Unwin, ISBN 0-04-575015-7.</ref> is a contested hypothesis in [[genomics]] and [[molecular evolution]] suggesting that the genomes of the early [[vertebrate]] lineage underwent one or more complete [[genome duplication]]s, and thus modern vertebrate genomes reflect [[paleopolyploidy]]. The name derives from the '''''2 r'''ounds'' of duplication hypothesized by a 1994 version, and the term ''2R hypothesis'' was probably coined in 1999; variations in the number of duplications typically still are referred to as examples of the 2R hypothesis.<ref name=Hokamp>{{cite journal | last1 = Hokamp | first1 = K | last2 = McLysaght | first2 = A | last3 = Wolfe | first3 = KH | title = The 2R hypothesis and the human genome sequence | journal = Journal of structural and functional genomics | volume = 3 | issue = 1–4 | pages = 95–110 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12836689 | doi = 10.1023/A:1022661917301 }}</ref> Since Ohno proposed the first version of it in ''Evolution by Gene Duplication'', the 2R hypothesis has been the subject of much research, but even with recent data from the [[human genome]], it remains a matter of scientific dispute.
The '''2R hypothesis''' or '''Ohno's hypothesis''', first proposed by [[Susumu Ohno]] in 1970,<ref name=Ohno70>Ohno S (1970). ''Evolution by Gene Duplication.'' London: Allen and Unwin, ISBN 0-04-575015-7.</ref> is a hypothesis in [[genomics]] and [[molecular evolution]] suggesting that the genomes of the early [[vertebrate]] lineage underwent two complete [[genome duplication]]s, and thus modern vertebrate genomes reflect [[paleopolyploidy]]. The name derives from the '''''2 r'''ounds'' of duplication originally hypothesized by Ohno, but refined in a 1994 version, and the term ''2R hypothesis'' was probably coined in 1999. Variations in the number and timings of genome duplications typically still are referred to as examples of the 2R hypothesis.<ref name=Hokamp>{{cite journal | last1 = Hokamp | first1 = K | last2 = McLysaght | first2 = A | last3 = Wolfe | first3 = KH | title = The 2R hypothesis and the human genome sequence | journal = Journal of structural and functional genomics | volume = 3 | issue = 1–4 | pages = 95–110 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12836689 | doi = 10.1023/A:1022661917301 }}</ref> The 2R hypothesis has been the subject of much research and controversy; however, with growing support from genome data, including the [[human genome]], the balance of opinion has shifted strongly in favour of support for the hypothesis.


<blockquote>According to Hokamp ''et al.'' (2003),<ref name=Hokamp/> the version of the genome duplication hypothesis from which 2R hypothesis takes its name appears in Holland ''et al.'' (1994)<ref name=Holland>{{cite journal | last1 = Holland | first1 = PW | last2 = Garcia-Fernàndez | first2 = J | last3 = Williams | first3 = NA | last4 = Sidow | first4 = A | title = Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development | journal = Development (Cambridge, England). Supplement | pages = 125–33 | year = 1994 | pmid = 7579513 }}</ref> and the term was coined in Hughes (1999).<ref name=Hughes>{{cite journal | last1 = Hughes | first1 = AL | title = Phylogenies of developmentally important proteins do not support the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate history | journal = Journal of molecular evolution | volume = 48 | issue = 5 | pages = 565–76 | year = 1999 | pmid = 10198122 | doi = 10.1007/PL00006499 }}</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>According to Hokamp ''et al.'' (2003),<ref name=Hokamp/> the version of the genome duplication hypothesis from which 2R hypothesis takes its name appears in Holland ''et al.'' (1994)<ref name=Holland>{{cite journal | last1 = Holland | first1 = PW | last2 = Garcia-Fernàndez | first2 = J | last3 = Williams | first3 = NA | last4 = Sidow | first4 = A | title = Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development | journal = Development (Cambridge, England). Supplement | pages = 125–33 | year = 1994 | pmid = 7579513 }}</ref> and the term was coined in Hughes (1999).<ref name=Hughes>{{cite journal | last1 = Hughes | first1 = AL | title = Phylogenies of developmentally important proteins do not support the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate history | journal = Journal of molecular evolution | volume = 48 | issue = 5 | pages = 565–76 | year = 1999 | pmid = 10198122 | doi = 10.1007/PL00006499 }}</ref></blockquote>


==Ohno's argument==
==Ohno's argument==
Ohno presented the first version of the 2R hypothesis as part of his larger argument for the general importance of [[gene duplication]] in [[evolution]]. Based on relative genome sizes, he suggested that ancestral fish or amphibians had undergone at least one and possibly more cases of "tetraploid evolution". He later added to this argument the evidence that most [[paralogous genes]] in vertebrates do not demonstrate [[genetic linkage]]. Ohno argued that linkage should be expected in the case of individual [[tandem duplications]] (in which a duplicate gene is added adjacent to the original gene on the same chromosome), but not in the case of chromosome duplications.
Ohno presented the first version of the 2R hypothesis as part of his larger argument for the general importance of [[gene duplication]] in [[evolution]]. Based on relative genome sizes and [[isozyme]] analysis, he suggested that ancestral fish or amphibians had undergone at least one and possibly more cases of "tetraploid evolution". He later added to this argument the evidence that most [[paralogous genes]] in vertebrates do not demonstrate [[genetic linkage]]. Ohno argued that linkage should be expected in the case of individual [[tandem duplications]] (in which a duplicate gene is added adjacent to the original gene on the same chromosome), but not in the case of chromosome duplications.
<ref name=Makalowski>{{cite journal | last1 = Makalowski | first1 = W | title = Are we polyploids? A brief history of one hypothesis | journal = Genome Research | volume = 11 | issue = 5 | pages = 667–70 | year = 2001 | pmid = 11337465 | doi = 10.1101/gr.188801 }}</ref>
<ref name=Makalowski>{{cite journal | last1 = Makalowski | first1 = W | title = Are we polyploids? A brief history of one hypothesis | journal = Genome Research | volume = 11 | issue = 5 | pages = 667–70 | year = 2001 | pmid = 11337465 | doi = 10.1101/gr.188801 }}</ref>


==Later evidence==
==Later evidence==
In 1977, Schmidtke and colleagues showed that [[isozyme]] complexity is similar in [[amphioxus]] and [[tunicates]], contradicting a prediction of Ohno's hypothesis that [[genome duplication]] occurred in the common ancestor of [[amphioxus]] and [[vertebrates]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=SCHMIDTKE|first=JÖRG|coauthors=WEILER, CONRAD; KUNZ, BRIGITTE; ENGEL, WOLFGANG|title=Isozymes of a tunicate and a cephalochordate as a test of polyploidisation in chordate evolution|journal=Nature|date=6 April 1977|volume=266|issue=5602|pages=532–533|doi=10.1038/266532a0}}</ref>. However, this analysis did not examine [[vertebrates]], so could say nothing about later duplication events <ref>{{cite journal|last=Holland|first=PW|title=More genes in vertebrates?|journal=Journal of structural and functional genomics|date=2003|volume=3|issue=1-4|pages=75-84|pmid=12836687}}</ref>. (Furthermore, much later [[molecular phylogenetics]] has shown that [[vertebrates]] are more closely related to [[tunicates]] than to [[amphioxus]], thus negating the logic of this analysis<ref>{{cite journal|last=Delsuc|first=F|coauthors=Brinkmann, H; Chourrout, D; Philippe, H|title=Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates.|journal=Nature|date=2006 Feb 23|volume=439|issue=7079|pages=965-8|pmid=16495997}}</ref> ). The 2R hypothesis saw a resurgence of interest in the 1990s for two reasons. First, gene mapping data in humans and mice revealed extensive [[paralogy regions]] - sets of genes on one chromosome related to sets of genes on another chromosome in the same species, indicative of duplication events in evolution<ref>{{cite journal|last=Lundin|first=LG|title=Evolution of the vertebrate genome as reflected in paralogous chromosomal regions in man and the house mouse.|journal=Genomics|date=1993 Apr|volume=16|issue=1|pages=1-19|pmid=8486346}}</ref>. Paralogy regions were generally in sets of four. Second, cloning of [[Hox]] genes in [[amphioxus]] revealed presence of a single [[Hox gene cluster]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Garcia-Fernández|first=J|coauthors=Holland, PW|title=Archetypal organization of the amphioxus Hox gene cluster.|journal=Nature|date=1994 Aug 18|volume=370|issue=6490|pages=563-6|pmid=7914353}}</ref> , in contrast to the four clusters in humans and mice. Data from additional [[gene families]] revealed a common one-to-many rule when [[amphioxus]] and [[vertebrate]] genes were compared<ref>{{cite journal|last=Holland|first=PW|title=More genes in vertebrates?|journal=Journal of structural and functional genomics|date=2003|volume=3|issue=1-4|pages=75-84|pmid=12836687}}</ref>. Taken together, these two lines of evidence suggest that two genome duplications occurred in the ancestry of [[vertebrates]], after it had diverged from the [[cephalochordate]] evolutionary lineage.
The 2R hypothesis saw a resurgence of interest in the 1990s, with multiple suggestions for the time and number of duplications. Estimates for the dates of duplication events range from before 640 million years ago to after 450 million years ago. One argument for the hypothesis relies on the number of genes in mammals, which was previously estimated at around four times the number in invertebrate genomes (though more recent estimates are less than half that). Some analyses of gene families in human chromosomes have shown patterns that are not consistent with the 2R hypothesis. [[Parsimony analysis]] has produced some results that, while not supportive of the hypothesis, do not rule it out. According to a 2001 review of the subject by Wojciech Makałowski, "the hypothesis of whole genome duplications in the early stages of vertebrate evolution has as many adherents as opponents"; Makałowski argues that the overall balance of current evidence seems to be against it, but that it is not easily falsifiable because it can be modified to accommodate a wide range of data.<ref name=Makalowski/> Others analyzing duplications in the draft human genome sequence have claimed that genome data provides evidence of "extensive duplication" and that the parsimony tests that cast doubt on the hypothesis are of questionable validity.<ref name=Hokamp/> A review in 2007 by Masanori Kasahara states that there is now "incontrovertible evidence supporting the 2R hypothesis" and that "a long-standing debate on the 2R hypothesis is approaching the end".<ref name=Kasahara>{{cite journal | last1 = Kasahara | first1 = M | title = The 2R hypothesis: an update | journal = Current opinion in immunology | volume = 19 | issue = 5 | pages = 547–52 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17707623 | doi = 10.1016/j.coi.2007.07.009 }}</ref>

Controversy about the 2R hypothesis hinged on the nature of [[paralogy regions]]. It is not disputed that human [[chromosomes]] bear sets of genes related to sets of genes on other [[chromosomes]]; the controversy centres on whether they were generated by large-scale duplications that doubled all the genes at the same time, or whether a series of individual [[gene duplications]] occurred followed by [[chromosomal rearrangement]] to shuffle sets of genes together. Hughes and colleagues found that [[phylogenetic trees]] built from different [[gene families]] within [[paralogy regions]] had different shapes, suggesting that the gene families had different evolutionary histories<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hughes|first=AL|title=Phylogenies of developmentally important proteins do not support the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate history.|journal=Journal of molecular evolution|date=1999 May|volume=48|issue=5|pages=565-76|pmid=10198122}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Hughes|first=Austin L.|coauthors=Friedman, Robert|journal=Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics|date=1 January 2003|volume=3|issue=1/4|pages=85–93|doi=10.1023/A:1022681600462}}</ref> . This was suggested to be inconsistent with the 2R hypothesis. However, other researchers have argued that such 'topology tests' do not test 2R rigorously, because [[recombination]] could have occurred between the closely related chromosomes generated by [[polyploidy]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Furlong|first=RF|coauthors=Holland, PW|title=Were vertebrates octoploid?|journal=Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences|date=2002 Apr 29|volume=357|issue=1420|pages=531-44|pmid=12028790}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Lynch|first=VJ|coauthors=Wagner, GP|title=Multiple chromosomal rearrangements structured the ancestral vertebrate Hox-bearing protochromosomes.|journal=PLoS genetics|date=2009 Jan|volume=5|issue=1|pages=e1000349|pmid=19165336}}</ref>, because inappropriate genes had been compared<ref>{{cite journal|last=Larhammar|first=D.|coauthors=Josephson, M|title=The Human Hox-bearing Chromosome Regions Did Arise by Block or Chromosome (or Even Genome) Duplications|journal=Genome Research|date=1 December 2002|volume=12|issue=12|pages=1910–1920|doi=10.1101/gr.445702|pmid=187569}}</ref> and because different predictions are made if [[genome duplication]] occurred through [[hybridisation]] between species<ref>{{cite journal|last=Spring|first=Jürg|title=Vertebrate evolution by interspecific hybridisation – are we polyploid?|journal=FEBS Letters|date=1 January 1997|volume=400|issue=1|pages=2–8|doi=10.1016/S0014-5793(96)01351-8}}</ref> . In addition, several researchers were able to date duplications of gene families within [[paralogy regions]] consistently to the early evolution of vertebrates, after divergence from amphioxus, consistent with the 2R hypothesis<ref>{{cite journal|last=Abi-Rached|first=L|coauthors=Gilles, A; Shiina, T; Pontarotti, P; Inoko, H|title=Evidence of en bloc duplication in vertebrate genomes.|journal=Nature genetics|date=2002 May|volume=31|issue=1|pages=100-5|pmid=11967531}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Castro|first=LF|coauthors=Holland, PW|title=Chromosomal mapping of ANTP class homeobox genes in amphioxus: piecing together ancestral genomes.|journal=Evolution & development|date=2003 Sep-Oct|volume=5|issue=5|pages=459-65|pmid=12950625}}</ref>. When complete [[genome sequences]] became available for [[vertebrates]], ''[[Ciona intestinalis]]'' and [[amphioxus]], it was found that much of the [[human genome]] was arranged in [[paralogy regions]] that could be traced to large-scale duplications<ref>{{cite journal|last=McLysaght|first=Aoife|coauthors=Hokamp, Karsten; Wolfe, Kenneth H.|title=Extensive genomic duplication during early chordate evolution|journal=Nature Genetics|date=27 May 2002|volume=31|issue=2|pages=200–204|doi=10.1038/ng884}}</ref>, and that these duplications occurred after [[vertebrates]] had diverged from [[tunicates]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Dehal|first=Paramvir|coauthors=Boore, Jeffrey L.|title=Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate|journal=PLoS Biology|date=1 January 2005|volume=3|issue=10|pages=e314|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314}}</ref> and [[amphioxus]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Putnam|first=NH|coauthors=Butts, T; Ferrier, DE; Furlong, RF; Hellsten, U; Kawashima, T; Robinson-Rechavi, M; Shoguchi, E; Terry, A; Yu, JK; Benito-Gutiérrez, EL; Dubchak, I; Garcia-Fernàndez, J; Gibson-Brown, JJ; Grigoriev, IV; Horton, AC; de Jong, PJ; Jurka, J; Kapitonov, VV; Kohara, Y; Kuroki, Y; Lindquist, E; Lucas, S; Osoegawa, K; Pennacchio, LA; Salamov, AA; Satou, Y; Sauka-Spengler, T; Schmutz, J; Shin-I, T; Toyoda, A; Bronner-Fraser, M; Fujiyama, A; Holland, LZ; Holland, PW; Satoh, N; Rokhsar, DS|title=The amphioxus genome and the evolution of the chordate karyotype.|journal=Nature|date=2008 Jun 19|volume=453|issue=7198|pages=1064-71|pmid=18563158}}</ref> . This would date the two [[genome duplications]] to between 550 and 450 million years ago.

The controversy raging in the late 1990s was summarized in a 2001 review of the subject by Wojciech Makałowski, who stated that "the hypothesis of whole genome duplications in the early stages of vertebrate evolution has as many adherents as opponents" <ref name=Makalowski/>. In contrast, a more recent review in 2007 by Masanori Kasahara states that there is now "incontrovertible evidence supporting the 2R hypothesis" and that "a long-standing debate on the 2R hypothesis is approaching the end".<ref name=Kasahara>{{cite journal | last1 = Kasahara | first1 = M | title = The 2R hypothesis: an update | journal = Current opinion in immunology | volume = 19 | issue = 5 | pages = 547–52 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17707623 | doi = 10.1016/j.coi.2007.07.009 }}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 18:03, 8 December 2012

The 2R hypothesis or Ohno's hypothesis, first proposed by Susumu Ohno in 1970,[1] is a hypothesis in genomics and molecular evolution suggesting that the genomes of the early vertebrate lineage underwent two complete genome duplications, and thus modern vertebrate genomes reflect paleopolyploidy. The name derives from the 2 rounds of duplication originally hypothesized by Ohno, but refined in a 1994 version, and the term 2R hypothesis was probably coined in 1999. Variations in the number and timings of genome duplications typically still are referred to as examples of the 2R hypothesis.[2] The 2R hypothesis has been the subject of much research and controversy; however, with growing support from genome data, including the human genome, the balance of opinion has shifted strongly in favour of support for the hypothesis.

According to Hokamp et al. (2003),[2] the version of the genome duplication hypothesis from which 2R hypothesis takes its name appears in Holland et al. (1994)[3] and the term was coined in Hughes (1999).[4]

Ohno's argument

Ohno presented the first version of the 2R hypothesis as part of his larger argument for the general importance of gene duplication in evolution. Based on relative genome sizes and isozyme analysis, he suggested that ancestral fish or amphibians had undergone at least one and possibly more cases of "tetraploid evolution". He later added to this argument the evidence that most paralogous genes in vertebrates do not demonstrate genetic linkage. Ohno argued that linkage should be expected in the case of individual tandem duplications (in which a duplicate gene is added adjacent to the original gene on the same chromosome), but not in the case of chromosome duplications. [5]

Later evidence

In 1977, Schmidtke and colleagues showed that isozyme complexity is similar in amphioxus and tunicates, contradicting a prediction of Ohno's hypothesis that genome duplication occurred in the common ancestor of amphioxus and vertebrates[6]. However, this analysis did not examine vertebrates, so could say nothing about later duplication events [7]. (Furthermore, much later molecular phylogenetics has shown that vertebrates are more closely related to tunicates than to amphioxus, thus negating the logic of this analysis[8] ). The 2R hypothesis saw a resurgence of interest in the 1990s for two reasons. First, gene mapping data in humans and mice revealed extensive paralogy regions - sets of genes on one chromosome related to sets of genes on another chromosome in the same species, indicative of duplication events in evolution[9]. Paralogy regions were generally in sets of four. Second, cloning of Hox genes in amphioxus revealed presence of a single Hox gene cluster[10] , in contrast to the four clusters in humans and mice. Data from additional gene families revealed a common one-to-many rule when amphioxus and vertebrate genes were compared[11]. Taken together, these two lines of evidence suggest that two genome duplications occurred in the ancestry of vertebrates, after it had diverged from the cephalochordate evolutionary lineage.

Controversy about the 2R hypothesis hinged on the nature of paralogy regions. It is not disputed that human chromosomes bear sets of genes related to sets of genes on other chromosomes; the controversy centres on whether they were generated by large-scale duplications that doubled all the genes at the same time, or whether a series of individual gene duplications occurred followed by chromosomal rearrangement to shuffle sets of genes together. Hughes and colleagues found that phylogenetic trees built from different gene families within paralogy regions had different shapes, suggesting that the gene families had different evolutionary histories[12] [13] . This was suggested to be inconsistent with the 2R hypothesis. However, other researchers have argued that such 'topology tests' do not test 2R rigorously, because recombination could have occurred between the closely related chromosomes generated by polyploidy[14] [15], because inappropriate genes had been compared[16] and because different predictions are made if genome duplication occurred through hybridisation between species[17] . In addition, several researchers were able to date duplications of gene families within paralogy regions consistently to the early evolution of vertebrates, after divergence from amphioxus, consistent with the 2R hypothesis[18][19]. When complete genome sequences became available for vertebrates, Ciona intestinalis and amphioxus, it was found that much of the human genome was arranged in paralogy regions that could be traced to large-scale duplications[20], and that these duplications occurred after vertebrates had diverged from tunicates[21] and amphioxus[22] . This would date the two genome duplications to between 550 and 450 million years ago.

The controversy raging in the late 1990s was summarized in a 2001 review of the subject by Wojciech Makałowski, who stated that "the hypothesis of whole genome duplications in the early stages of vertebrate evolution has as many adherents as opponents" [5]. In contrast, a more recent review in 2007 by Masanori Kasahara states that there is now "incontrovertible evidence supporting the 2R hypothesis" and that "a long-standing debate on the 2R hypothesis is approaching the end".[23]

References

  1. ^ Ohno S (1970). Evolution by Gene Duplication. London: Allen and Unwin, ISBN 0-04-575015-7.
  2. ^ a b Hokamp, K; McLysaght, A; Wolfe, KH (2003). "The 2R hypothesis and the human genome sequence". Journal of structural and functional genomics. 3 (1–4): 95–110. doi:10.1023/A:1022661917301. PMID 12836689.
  3. ^ Holland, PW; Garcia-Fernàndez, J; Williams, NA; Sidow, A (1994). "Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development". Development (Cambridge, England). Supplement: 125–33. PMID 7579513.
  4. ^ Hughes, AL (1999). "Phylogenies of developmentally important proteins do not support the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate history". Journal of molecular evolution. 48 (5): 565–76. doi:10.1007/PL00006499. PMID 10198122.
  5. ^ a b Makalowski, W (2001). "Are we polyploids? A brief history of one hypothesis". Genome Research. 11 (5): 667–70. doi:10.1101/gr.188801. PMID 11337465.
  6. ^ SCHMIDTKE, JÖRG (6 April 1977). "Isozymes of a tunicate and a cephalochordate as a test of polyploidisation in chordate evolution". Nature. 266 (5602): 532–533. doi:10.1038/266532a0. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Holland, PW (2003). "More genes in vertebrates?". Journal of structural and functional genomics. 3 (1–4): 75–84. PMID 12836687.
  8. ^ Delsuc, F (2006 Feb 23). "Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates". Nature. 439 (7079): 965–8. PMID 16495997. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Lundin, LG (1993 Apr). "Evolution of the vertebrate genome as reflected in paralogous chromosomal regions in man and the house mouse". Genomics. 16 (1): 1–19. PMID 8486346. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Garcia-Fernández, J (1994 Aug 18). "Archetypal organization of the amphioxus Hox gene cluster". Nature. 370 (6490): 563–6. PMID 7914353. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Holland, PW (2003). "More genes in vertebrates?". Journal of structural and functional genomics. 3 (1–4): 75–84. PMID 12836687.
  12. ^ Hughes, AL (1999 May). "Phylogenies of developmentally important proteins do not support the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate history". Journal of molecular evolution. 48 (5): 565–76. PMID 10198122. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ Hughes, Austin L. (1 January 2003). Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics. 3 (1/4): 85–93. doi:10.1023/A:1022681600462. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Furlong, RF (2002 Apr 29). "Were vertebrates octoploid?". Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 357 (1420): 531–44. PMID 12028790. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Lynch, VJ (2009 Jan). "Multiple chromosomal rearrangements structured the ancestral vertebrate Hox-bearing protochromosomes". PLoS genetics. 5 (1): e1000349. PMID 19165336. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ Larhammar, D. (1 December 2002). "The Human Hox-bearing Chromosome Regions Did Arise by Block or Chromosome (or Even Genome) Duplications". Genome Research. 12 (12): 1910–1920. doi:10.1101/gr.445702. PMID 187569. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ Spring, Jürg (1 January 1997). "Vertebrate evolution by interspecific hybridisation – are we polyploid?". FEBS Letters. 400 (1): 2–8. doi:10.1016/S0014-5793(96)01351-8.
  18. ^ Abi-Rached, L (2002 May). "Evidence of en bloc duplication in vertebrate genomes". Nature genetics. 31 (1): 100–5. PMID 11967531. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  19. ^ Castro, LF (2003 Sep-Oct). "Chromosomal mapping of ANTP class homeobox genes in amphioxus: piecing together ancestral genomes". Evolution & development. 5 (5): 459–65. PMID 12950625. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  20. ^ McLysaght, Aoife (27 May 2002). "Extensive genomic duplication during early chordate evolution". Nature Genetics. 31 (2): 200–204. doi:10.1038/ng884. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  21. ^ Dehal, Paramvir (1 January 2005). "Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate". PLoS Biology. 3 (10): e314. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  22. ^ Putnam, NH (2008 Jun 19). "The amphioxus genome and the evolution of the chordate karyotype". Nature. 453 (7198): 1064–71. PMID 18563158. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ Kasahara, M (2007). "The 2R hypothesis: an update". Current opinion in immunology. 19 (5): 547–52. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2007.07.009. PMID 17707623.