Talk:Gene duplication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Clarification[edit]

The significance of this process for evolutionary biology is that if a gene is under natural selection, many mutations will lead to loss of functionality and thus are selected against. When a gene is duplicated selection may be removed from one copy and now the other gene locus is free to mutate and discover new functions.

I don't understand this part at all, can someone try to explain it in other words? Thank you, --Abdull 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My advice, don't read "The Selfish Gene", a college level genetics text will be much better. Science popularizers usually have agendas, and none as shameless as Dawkins.
Firstly, the wording does make sense. Let's say you have one copy of a gene that makes an important protein necessary in metabolism. Mutations in that gene that alter its functionality are subject to natural selection and so are weeded out of the population. If however, there is a gene duplication, a mutation in one copy is not selected against because the other copy of the gene is still making that protein. The mutated protein is then available to be co-opted into other uses. Oh and read The Selfish Gene! — Dunc| 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I changed some of the explanation to offer better detail and generally expanded the section on duplications and evolution. Can someone look over it for clarity?? Rlrogers (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Change your see aslo[edit]

Change you see also it is offensive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.8.45.86 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Process or phenomenon?[edit]

Is gene duplication a process or a phenomenon that is the result of a process (or both)? It is a phenomenon if you can talk about a sequence where there is gene duplication, or a gene is an example of gene duplication, as opposed to the results of gene duplication. The article introduction is currently ambiguous about this. Please amend it accordingly. -Pgan002 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Check correctness after copy-edit[edit]

I have made major copy-edits to the article. Please check the correctness of the article in this version. -Pgan002 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


  Hi - I checked it. It is correct - I have been doing research in this area for several years.
  --194.94.44.4 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplication free species?[edit]

A large part of the mathematical literature on genome rearrangements deals with permutations, which model genomes under the assumptions that they all contain the same genes once, only in different orders. Is this duplication-free model directly usable in real world studies, i.e. are there species, datasets, ... where no gene duplications occur? Or, if this is not true, is that simple model still usable in some way by biologists? Thanks a lot 87.64.11.159 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Partly answering my own question: if I trust this paper by Brian Hayes, the permutation model is realistic for at least some species of Drosophila. 87.64.11.159 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this cause Down Syndrome ?[edit]

Is the Down Syndrome caused by this process of gene duplication ? Stefan Udrea (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Down syndrome is caused by aneuploidy, which is one mechanism to produce duplications. Rlrogers (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Gene duplication as an evolutionary event" - any cited evidence?[edit]

"The duplication of a gene results in an additional copy that is free from selective pressure. One kind of view is that this allows the new copy of the gene to mutate without deleterious consequence to the organism. This freedom from consequences allows for the mutation of novel genes that could potentially increase the fitness of the organism or code for a new function. An example of this is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene."

Is there a reference for this claim? (Please remove if not) Are there any other examples? Is the theory of gene duplication adding novelty or a new biological advantage supported by any verifiable evidence or is just an idea someone had? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I added a few examples of duplications that produced novel functions, including references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlrogers (talkcontribs) 04:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gene duplication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)