Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution¶
True, J. R., & Carroll, S. B. (2002). Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 53-80.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Exaptation
- Co-option of existing gene-regulatory networks is now understood as a central mechanism of evolutionary novelty, as True and Carroll (2002) document in their review of gene co-option in morphological evolution.
This sourceReviews co-option of existing genes and gene-regulatory networks—by changing their regulation, protein function, or both—as a central mechanism of physiological and morphological evolutionary novelty.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
True and Carroll review co-option of existing genes, by changed regulation, changed protein function, or both, as a route to developmental and physiological novelty. Their summary states that "A major role for gene co-option in the evolution of development has long been assumed" and that comparative developmental and genomic studies support it, drawing together case studies of structural-gene and developmental-circuit co-option. That is the mechanism of novelty the sentence attributes to the review. The work's wording is more hedged than the sentence's "now understood as a central mechanism", saying the role "has long been assumed" and that co-option "may underlie" major episodes of adaptive change.
“A major role for gene co-option in the evolution of development has long been assumed, and many recent comparative developmental and genomic studies have lent support to this idea.”
- Co-option of existing gene-regulatory networks is now understood as a central mechanism of evolutionary novelty, as True and Carroll (2002) document in their review of gene co-option in morphological evolution.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:dbbac7403418 · see in the full table