arxiv: 2604.20477 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🧬 q-bio.PE

Recognition: unknown

Emergence biases in molecular evolution

Nikolaos Vakirlis, Timothy Fuqua

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 22:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE

keywords emergence biasmolecular evolutionde novo proteinspromotersenhancersevolutionary innovationmutation biasnew functions

0 comments

The pith

Genetic sequences carry an inherent bias that makes mutations more likely to produce new functions like promoters or proteins.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This perspective formalizes emergence bias as a molecular predisposition in genetic sequences that, when mutated, favors or disfavors the acquisition of new functions or phenotypes. Drawing from existing research on how promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins arise, the authors argue these cases share a common underlying bias rather than being isolated phenomena. If correct, this bias would mean that evolutionary innovations are not entirely random but guided by sequence-intrinsic properties, making certain evolutionary paths more probable. This matters because it offers a new lens for understanding how biological novelty originates at the molecular level, potentially explaining patterns of repeated evolution.

Core claim

Biases in molecular evolution influence trajectories in development and mutation, but not previously formalized for acquiring new functions. We define emergence bias as the molecular predisposition that biases a genetic sequence towards or against gaining new functions or phenotypes upon mutation. These have been observed in promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins. We synthesize these findings to support the concept and speculate on molecular underpinnings, suggesting emergence biases play an important role in evolutionary innovations.

What carries the argument

emergence bias: the molecular predisposition in a genetic sequence that biases it toward or against acquiring new functions or phenotypes upon mutation

If this is right

The emergence of new regulatory elements such as promoters and enhancers occurs more readily due to inherent sequence properties rather than mutation and selection alone.
De novo protein birth is facilitated in certain genetic backgrounds by these predispositions.
Evolutionary innovations are channeled toward specific outcomes by molecular biases, affecting the likelihood of functional novelty.
Models of molecular evolution should account for emergence biases in addition to mutation rates and selective pressures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If general, emergence biases could help explain convergent evolution where similar novelties arise repeatedly across independent lineages.
Synthetic biology experiments could deliberately introduce or remove biased sequences to accelerate or suppress the evolution of new functions.
The idea suggests testable predictions for whether analogous biases influence other molecular innovations, such as the origin of new metabolic enzymes.
Directed evolution protocols might be optimized by selecting starting sequences that exhibit high emergence bias for the target function.

Load-bearing premise

That the patterns observed in studies of promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins reflect a general molecular predisposition rather than case-specific or selection-driven effects.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment measuring the frequency of new functional emergence after random mutations across sequence classes, finding no consistent difference between those predicted to have high versus low emergence bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20477 by Nikolaos Vakirlis, Timothy Fuqua.

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Information theory and sequence space influence emergence. (A) A hypothetical representation of different functions (dashed gray shapes labeled I-V) in genotypic space (x and y-axes). The colored circles correspond to the three different DNA sequences in the genotypic space. The arrows show which functions these sequences are biased towards based on their proximity in the space. (B) The information content… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Biases in molecular evolution can significantly influence evolutionary trajectories. They have been described in a variety of contexts such as development and mutation, but not for acquiring new functions (i.e. emergence). Here, we formalize the term, emergence bias, as the molecular predisposition that, upon mutation, biases a genetic sequence towards or against gaining new functions or causing new phenotypes. These biases have been observed in previous studies for the emergence of promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins, but never formally characterized as such. In this Perspective piece, we describe these studies and synthesize their findings through the prism of a unifying term, emergence bias, to provide support for this new concept , and speculate on its molecular underpinnings. We believe that emergence biases may play an important role in evolutionary innovations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This perspective defines 'emergence bias' to label patterns in existing studies on promoters, enhancers, and de novo genes, but adds no new data, tests, or models.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is to introduce the term emergence bias for a molecular predisposition that makes certain sequences more likely to gain new functions after mutation. It collects observations from prior work on promoter emergence, enhancer activity, and de novo protein birth and presents them as instances of the same underlying tendency. The authors also speculate briefly on possible sequence features or mutation biases that could produce it. That synthesis is the only new element; the underlying studies are already published and cited directly. The writing is clear and the framing is straightforward, which makes the idea easy to grasp for readers who follow molecular evolution. The authors are careful to hedge, calling it a belief rather than a demonstrated mechanism. The soft spots are exactly what you would expect from a perspective without new experiments or derivations. There is no attempt to quantify how strong the bias is, to separate it from selection, or to test whether the pattern holds outside the cited cases. The claim that it plays an important role in evolutionary innovations therefore stays at the level of suggestion. If the cited papers already show selection-driven outcomes rather than intrinsic predispositions, the unifying label adds little beyond terminology. This is for evolutionary biologists who work on the origins of new regulatory elements or genes and want a compact way to talk about sequence-level biases. A reader looking for quantitative predictions, fresh datasets, or formal models will not find them. It deserves a serious referee because the idea is coherent on its own terms and could prompt more focused empirical work, even if the current version is light on evidence. I would send it for review rather than desk reject, with the expectation that reviewers will ask for clearer distinctions from selection and more concrete examples.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a Perspective article that formalizes the concept of 'emergence bias' as a molecular predisposition biasing mutational outcomes towards or against gaining new functions or phenotypes. It synthesizes findings from prior studies on the emergence of promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins under this term, speculates on molecular underpinnings, and suggests these biases may play an important role in evolutionary innovations.

Significance. If the proposed unifying concept holds, it offers a valuable conceptual framework for integrating observations across molecular systems in evolutionary biology, potentially guiding research into common mechanisms of functional innovation beyond known mutational and developmental biases. The manuscript is credited for its clear synthesis of disparate literature under a single term, which provides a useful lens even without new data or models.

major comments (1)

[Synthesis of prior studies] The synthesis of studies on promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins does not address or distinguish whether the reported patterns reflect a general molecular predisposition (emergence bias) versus case-specific selection effects in the experimental or natural contexts of those studies; this distinction is load-bearing for the unifying claim.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract phrasing 'never formally characterized as such' could be revised for precision, as the work is a perspective synthesis rather than a primary formalization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the manuscript as a Perspective and for the constructive comment on distinguishing general molecular predispositions from selection effects. We address this point below and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The synthesis of studies on promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins does not address or distinguish whether the reported patterns reflect a general molecular predisposition (emergence bias) versus case-specific selection effects in the experimental or natural contexts of those studies; this distinction is load-bearing for the unifying claim.

Authors: We agree that this distinction is important for the strength of the unifying concept. The Perspective synthesizes patterns observed across independent systems (promoters in random libraries, enhancers in reporter assays, and de novo proteins in both experimental and natural contexts), which were not designed to test emergence bias a priori. While we cannot retroactively eliminate all selection effects from the cited studies, the consistency of mutational biases toward functional emergence in controlled experimental setups (e.g., unselected random sequence libraries) provides evidence for a molecular-level predisposition. In the revised manuscript, we will add an explicit discussion section addressing this point, clarifying the limitations of the existing data, and outlining how future experiments could better isolate emergence bias from selection. This will refine rather than overstate the unifying claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is a perspective piece that formalizes the term 'emergence bias' as a conceptual label for molecular predispositions observed in prior studies on promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins. No equations, quantitative models, predictions, or derivations are present. The argument synthesizes external observations under a new unifying term without any internal fitting, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to its own inputs. The claim is explicitly hedged and offered as a lens rather than a demonstrated mechanism, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that prior case studies reflect a general molecular mechanism; no free parameters or new entities with independent evidence are introduced beyond the conceptual label itself.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Biases toward new function acquisition have been observed in studies of promoters, enhancers, and de novo proteins.
Invoked in the abstract as the basis for synthesis without re-examination of the original data.

invented entities (1)

emergence bias no independent evidence
purpose: To unify observations of molecular predispositions that bias sequences toward or against gaining new functions upon mutation.
Newly coined term without new supporting measurements or falsifiable predictions in this manuscript.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5419 in / 1205 out tokens · 58542 ms · 2026-05-09T22:55:07.495787+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

[1]

Biased Embryos and Evolution

Arthur W. Biased Embryos and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606830

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511606830 2004
[2]

Mutation bias and the predictability of evolution

Cano AV , Gitschlag BL, Rozhoňová H, Stoltzfus A, McCandlish DM, Payne JL. Mutation bias and the predictability of evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2023;378: 20220055. doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0055

work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0055 2023
[3]

Codon usage bias

Parvathy ST, Udayasuriyan V , Bhadana V . Codon usage bias. Mol Biol Rep. 2022;49: 539–565. doi:10.1007/s11033-021-06749-4

work page doi:10.1007/s11033-021-06749-4 2022
[4]

Dense and pleiotropic regulatory information in a developmental enhancer

Fuqua T, Jordan J, van Breugel ME, Halavatyi A, Tischer C, Polidoro P , et al. Dense and pleiotropic regulatory information in a developmental enhancer. Nature. 2020;587: 235–239. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2816-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2816-5 2020
[5]

Developmental bias predicts 60 million years of wing shape evolution

Rohner PT, Berger D. Developmental bias predicts 60 million years of wing shape evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2023;120: e2211210120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2211210120

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2211210120 2023
[6]

Cano and Joshua L

Cano AV , Payne JL. Mutation bias interacts with composition bias to influence adaptive evolution. PLOS Computational Biology. 2020;16: e1008296. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008296

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008296 2020
[7]

Mutational Biases Influence Parallel Adaptation

Stoltzfus A, McCandlish DM. Mutational Biases Influence Parallel Adaptation. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34: 2163–2172. doi:10.1093/molbev/msx180

work page doi:10.1093/molbev/msx180 2017
[8]

The role of mutation bias in adaptive molecular evolution: insights from convergent changes in protein function

Storz JF , Natarajan C, Signore AV , Witt CC, McCandlish DM, Stoltzfus A. The role of mutation bias in adaptive molecular evolution: insights from convergent changes in protein function. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2019;374: 20180238. doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0238

work page doi:10.1098/rstb.2018.0238 2019
[9]

The fitness landscape of the codon space across environments

Fragata I, Matuszewski S, Schmitz MA, Bataillon T, Jensen JD, Bank C. The fitness landscape of the codon space across environments. Heredity (Edinb). 2018;121: 422–437. doi:10.1038/s41437-018- 0125-7

work page doi:10.1038/s41437-018- 2018
[10]

Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective

Uller T, Moczek AP , Watson RA, Brakefield PM, Laland KN. Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective. Genetics. 2018;209: 949–966. doi:10.1534/genetics.118.300995

work page doi:10.1534/genetics.118.300995 2018
[11]

Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters

Yona AH, Alm EJ, Gore J. Random sequences rapidly evolve into de novo promoters. Nat Commun. 2018;9: 1530. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04026-w Fuqua and Vakirlis, page 10

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04026-w 2018
[12]

Synthetic reversed sequences reveal default genomic states

Camellato BR, Brosh R, Ashe HJ, Maurano MT, Boeke JD. Synthetic reversed sequences reveal default genomic states. Nature. 2024;628: 373–380. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07128-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07128-2 2024
[13]

Predicting bacterial promoter function and evolution from random sequences

Lagator M, Sarikas S, Steinrueck M, Toledo-Aparicio D, Bollback JP , Guet CC, et al. Predicting bacterial promoter function and evolution from random sequences. Elife. 2022;11: e64543. doi:10.7554/eLife.64543

work page doi:10.7554/elife.64543 2022
[14]

Deep conservation of the enhancer regulatory code in animals

Wong ES, Zheng D, Tan SZ, Bower NI, Garside V , Vanwalleghem G, et al. Deep conservation of the enhancer regulatory code in animals. Science. 2020;370: eaax8137. doi:10.1126/science.aax8137

work page doi:10.1126/science.aax8137 2020
[15]

Regulatory activity is the default DNA state in eukaryotes

Luthra I, Jensen C, Chen XE, Salaudeen AL, Rafi AM, de Boer CG. Regulatory activity is the default DNA state in eukaryotes. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2024;31: 559–567. doi:10.1038/s41594-024-01235-4

work page doi:10.1038/s41594-024-01235-4 2024
[16]

Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution

Arthur W. Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evol Dev. 2001;3: 271–278. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003004271.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003004271.x 2001
[17]

Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution

Smith JM, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P , Campbell J, Goodwin B, et al. Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1985;60: 265–287

1985
[18]

Emergence and evolution of protein-coding de novo genes

Bornberg-Bauer E, Eicholt LA. Emergence and evolution of protein-coding de novo genes. Nat Rev Genet. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41576-025-00929-9

work page doi:10.1038/s41576-025-00929-9 2026
[19]

De novo human brain enhancers created by single-nucleotide mutations

Li S, Hannenhalli S, Ovcharenko I. De novo human brain enhancers created by single-nucleotide mutations. Sci Adv. 2023;9: eadd2911. doi:10.1126/sciadv.add2911

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.add2911 2023
[20]

De Novo Genesis of Enhancers in Vertebrates

Eichenlaub MP , Ettwiller L. De Novo Genesis of Enhancers in Vertebrates. PLoS Biol. 2011;9: e1001188. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001188

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001188 2011
[21]

De Novo Genes

Zhao L, Svetec N, Begun DJ. De Novo Genes. Annual Review of Genetics. 2024;58: 211–232. doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-111523-102413

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-111523-102413 2024
[22]

Cryptic Genetic Variation Is Enriched for Potential Adaptations

Masel J. Cryptic Genetic Variation Is Enriched for Potential Adaptations. Genetics. 2006;172: 1985–

2006
[23]

doi:10.1534/genetics.105.051649

work page doi:10.1534/genetics.105.051649
[24]

Exaptation—a Missing Term in the Science of Form

Gould SJ, Vrba ES. Exaptation—a Missing Term in the Science of Form. Paleobiology. 1982;8: 4–15. doi:10.1017/S0094837300004310

work page doi:10.1017/s0094837300004310 1982
[25]

Mechanisms and Evolution of Control Logic in Prokaryotic Transcriptional Regulation

van Hijum SAFT, Medema MH, Kuipers OP . Mechanisms and Evolution of Control Logic in Prokaryotic Transcriptional Regulation. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2009;73: 481–509. doi:10.1128/mmbr.00037-08

work page doi:10.1128/mmbr.00037-08 2009
[26]

The emergence and evolution of gene expression in genome regions replete with regulatory motifs

Fuqua T, Sun Y , Wagner A. The emergence and evolution of gene expression in genome regions replete with regulatory motifs. Lynch VJ, Moses AM, editors. eLife. 2024;13: RP98654. doi:10.7554/eLife.98654

work page doi:10.7554/elife.98654 2024
[27]

The latent cis-regulatory potential of mobile DNA in Escherichia coli

Fuqua T, Wagner A. The latent cis-regulatory potential of mobile DNA in Escherichia coli. Nat Commun. 2025;16: 4740. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60023-w

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60023-w 2025
[28]

De-novo promoters emerge more readily from random DNA than from genomic DNA

Fuqua T, Wagner A. De-novo promoters emerge more readily from random DNA than from genomic DNA. bioRxiv. 2025; 2025.08.25.672121. doi:10.1101/2025.08.25.672121

work page doi:10.1101/2025.08.25.672121 2025
[29]

Expression noise facilitates the evolution of gene regulation

Wolf L, Silander OK, van Nimwegen E. Expression noise facilitates the evolution of gene regulation. Golding I, editor. eLife. 2015;4: e05856. doi:10.7554/eLife.05856 Fuqua and Vakirlis, page 11

work page doi:10.7554/elife.05856 2015
[30]

A non-canonical promoter element drives spurious transcription of horizontally acquired bacterial genes

Warman EA, Singh SS, Gubieda AG, Grainger DC. A non-canonical promoter element drives spurious transcription of horizontally acquired bacterial genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48: 4891–4901. doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa244

work page doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa244 2020
[31]

Sort-seq under the hood: implications of design choices on large-scale characterization of sequence-function relations

Peterman N, Levine E. Sort-seq under the hood: implications of design choices on large-scale characterization of sequence-function relations. BMC Genomics. 2016;17: 206. doi:10.1186/s12864- 016-2533-5

work page doi:10.1186/s12864- 2016
[32]

Using deep sequencing to characterize the biophysical mechanism of a transcriptional regulatory sequence

Kinney JB, Murugan A, Callan CG, Cox EC. Using deep sequencing to characterize the biophysical mechanism of a transcriptional regulatory sequence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107: 9158–9163. doi:10.1073/pnas.1004290107

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1004290107 2010
[33]

DeepSTARR predicts enhancer activity from DNA sequence and enables the de novo design of synthetic enhancers

de Almeida BP , Reiter F , Pagani M, Stark A. DeepSTARR predicts enhancer activity from DNA sequence and enables the de novo design of synthetic enhancers. Nat Genet. 2022;54: 613–624. doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01048-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01048-5 2022
[34]

Diverse families of transposable elements affect the transcriptional regulation of stress-response genes in Drosophila melanogaster

Villanueva-Cañas JL, Horvath V , Aguilera L, González J. Diverse families of transposable elements affect the transcriptional regulation of stress-response genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47: 6842–6857. doi:10.1093/nar/gkz490

work page doi:10.1093/nar/gkz490 2019
[35]

FlyFactorSurvey: a database of Drosophila transcription factor binding specificities determined using the bacterial one- hybrid system

Zhu LJ, Christensen RG, Kazemian M, Hull CJ, Enuameh MS, Basciotta MD, et al. FlyFactorSurvey: a database of Drosophila transcription factor binding specificities determined using the bacterial one- hybrid system. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39: D111–D117. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq858

work page doi:10.1093/nar/gkq858 2011
[36]

Logomaker: beautiful sequence logos in Python

Tareen A, Kinney JB. Logomaker: beautiful sequence logos in Python. Bioinformatics. 2020;36: 2272–

2020
[37]

doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz921

work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz921
[38]

Spatial expression of transcription factors in Drosophila embryonic organ development

Hammonds AS, Bristow CA, Fisher WW, Weiszmann R, Wu S, Hartenstein V , et al. Spatial expression of transcription factors in Drosophila embryonic organ development. Genome Biol. 2013;14: R140. doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-12-r140

work page doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-12-r140 2013
[39]

Global analysis of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis

Tomancak P , Berman BP , Beaton A, Weiszmann R, Kwan E, Hartenstein V , et al. Global analysis of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 2007;8: R145. doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r145

work page doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r145 2007
[40]

Systematic determination of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis

Tomancak P , Beaton A, Weiszmann R, Kwan E, Shu S, Lewis SE, et al. Systematic determination of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 2002;3: RESEARCH0088. doi:10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0088

work page doi:10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0088 2002
[41]

Dissociation of the dorsal-cactus complex and phosphorylation of the dorsal protein correlate with the nuclear localization of dorsal

Whalen AM, Steward R. Dissociation of the dorsal-cactus complex and phosphorylation of the dorsal protein correlate with the nuclear localization of dorsal. J Cell Biol. 1993;123: 523–534. doi:10.1083/jcb.123.3.523

work page doi:10.1083/jcb.123.3.523 1993
[42]

Yeh and I

Banerji J, Olson L, Schaffner W. A lymphocyte-specific cellular enhancer is located downstream of the joining region in immunoglobulin heavy chain genes. Cell. 1983;33: 729–740. doi:10.1016/0092- 8674(83)90015-6

work page doi:10.1016/0092- 1983
[43]

Ever-changing landscapes: transcriptional enhancers in development and evolution

Long HK, Prescott SL, Wysocka J. Ever-changing landscapes: transcriptional enhancers in development and evolution. Cell. 2016;167: 1170–1187. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.018

work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.018 2016
[44]

Evolutionary origin of a novel gene expression pattern through co-option of the latent activities of existing regulatory sequences

Rebeiz M, Jikomes N, Kassner VA, Carroll SB. Evolutionary origin of a novel gene expression pattern through co-option of the latent activities of existing regulatory sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108: 10036–10043. doi:10.1073/pnas.1105937108

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1105937108 2011
[45]

Decoding gene regulation in the fly brain

Janssens J, Aibar S, Taskiran II, Ismail JN, Gomez AE, Aughey G, et al. Decoding gene regulation in the fly brain. Nature. 2022;601: 630–636. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04262-z Fuqua and Vakirlis, page 12

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04262-z 2022
[46]

Cell-type-directed design of synthetic enhancers

Taskiran II, Spanier KI, Dickmänken H, Kempynck N, Pančíková A, Ekşi EC, et al. Cell-type-directed design of synthetic enhancers. Nature. 2024;626: 212–220. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06936-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06936-2 2024
[47]

Using AlphaFold to predict the impact of single mutations on protein stability and function

Pak MA, Markhieva KA, Novikova MS, Petrov DS, Vorobyev IS, Maksimova ES, et al. Using AlphaFold to predict the impact of single mutations on protein stability and function. PLOS ONE. 2023;18: e0282689. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282689

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282689 2023
[48]

Can AlphaFold2 predict the impact of missense mutations on structure? Nat Struct Mol Biol

Buel GR, Walters KJ. Can AlphaFold2 predict the impact of missense mutations on structure? Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2022;29: 1–2. doi:10.1038/s41594-021-00714-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41594-021-00714-2 2022
[49]

Enhancer architecture and chromatin accessibility constrain phenotypic space during Drosophila development

Galupa R, Alvarez-Canales G, Borst NO, Fuqua T, Gandara L, Misunou N, et al. Enhancer architecture and chromatin accessibility constrain phenotypic space during Drosophila development. Dev Cell. 2023;58: 51-62.e4. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2022.12.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2022.12.003 2023
[50]

Gene regulatory networks and essential transcription factors for de novo-originated genes

Peng J, Wang B-J, Svetec N, Zhao L. Gene regulatory networks and essential transcription factors for de novo-originated genes. Nat Ecol Evol. 2025; 1–12. doi:10.1038/s41559-025-02747-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41559-025-02747-y 2025
[51]

Ancient Transposable Elements Transformed the Uterine Regulatory Landscape and Transcriptome during the Evolution of Mammalian Pregnancy

Lynch VJ, Nnamani MC, Kapusta A, Brayer K, Plaza SL, Mazur EC, et al. Ancient Transposable Elements Transformed the Uterine Regulatory Landscape and Transcriptome during the Evolution of Mammalian Pregnancy. Cell Reports. 2015;10: 551–561. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.12.052

work page doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.12.052 2015
[52]

Enhancer evolution across 20 mammalian species

Villar D, Berthelot C, Aldridge S, Rayner TF , Lukk M, Pignatelli M, et al. Enhancer evolution across 20 mammalian species. Cell. 2015;160: 554–566. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.006 2015
[53]

Stress response, behavior, and development are shaped by transposable element-induced mutations in Drosophila

Rech GE, Bogaerts-Márquez M, Barrón MG, Merenciano M, Villanueva-Cañas JL, Horváth V , et al. Stress response, behavior, and development are shaped by transposable element-induced mutations in Drosophila. PLOS Genetics. 2019;15: e1007900. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007900

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007900 2019
[54]

Endogenous retroviruses drive KRAB zinc-finger protein family expression for tumor suppression

Ito J, Kimura I, Soper A, Coudray A, Koyanagi Y , Nakaoka H, et al. Endogenous retroviruses drive KRAB zinc-finger protein family expression for tumor suppression. Science Advances. 2020;6: eabc3020. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc3020

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc3020 2020
[55]

Control of the Hypoxic Response in Drosophila melanogaster by the Basic Helix-Loop-Helix PAS Protein Similar

Lavista-Llanos S, Centanin L, Irisarri M, Russo DM, Gleadle JM, Bocca SN, et al. Control of the Hypoxic Response in Drosophila melanogaster by the Basic Helix-Loop-Helix PAS Protein Similar. Mol Cell Biol. 2002;22: 6842–6853. doi:10.1128/MCB.22.19.6842-6853.2002

work page doi:10.1128/mcb.22.19.6842-6853.2002 2002
[56]

Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza

Zhang L, Ren Y , Yang T, Li G, Chen J, Gschwend AR, et al. Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2019; 1. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0822-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0822-5 2019
[57]

A Molecular Portrait of De Novo Genes in Yeasts

Vakirlis N, Hebert AS, Opulente DA, Achaz G, Hittinger CT, Fischer G, et al. A Molecular Portrait of De Novo Genes in Yeasts. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35: 631–645. doi:10.1093/molbev/msx315

work page doi:10.1093/molbev/msx315 2018
[58]

Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes

Knowles DG, McLysaght A. Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes. Genome Res. 2009 [cited 10 Feb 2016]. doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109

work page doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109 2009
[59]

Evidence for the recent origin of a bacterial protein-coding, overlapping orphan gene by evolutionary overprinting

Fellner L, Simon S, Scherling C, Witting M, Schober S, Polte C, et al. Evidence for the recent origin of a bacterial protein-coding, overlapping orphan gene by evolutionary overprinting. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2015;15: 283. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0558-z

work page doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0558-z 2015
[60]

Translation of neutrally evolving peptides provides a basis for de novo gene evolution

Ruiz-Orera J, Verdaguer-Grau P , Villanueva-Cañas JL, Messeguer X, Albà MM. Translation of neutrally evolving peptides provides a basis for de novo gene evolution. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2: 890–896. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0506-6

work page doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0506-6 2018
[61]

Proto-genes and de novo gene birth

Carvunis A-R, Rolland T, Wapinski I, Calderwood MA, Yildirim MA, Simonis N, et al. Proto-genes and de novo gene birth. Nature. 2012;487: 370–374. doi:10.1038/nature11184 Fuqua and Vakirlis, page 13

work page doi:10.1038/nature11184 2012
[62]

A Shift in Aggregation Avoidance Strategy Marks a Long-Term Direction to Protein Evolution

Foy SG, Wilson BA, Bertram J, Cordes MHJ, Masel J. A Shift in Aggregation Avoidance Strategy Marks a Long-Term Direction to Protein Evolution. Genetics. 2019;211: 1345–1355. doi:10.1534/genetics.118.301719

work page doi:10.1534/genetics.118.301719 2019
[63]

De novo gene birth

Oss SBV , Carvunis A-R. De novo gene birth. PLOS Genetics. 2019;15: e1008160. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008160

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008160 2019
[64]

A Continuum of Evolving De Novo Genes Drives Protein- Coding Novelty in Drosophila

Heames B, Schmitz J, Bornberg-Bauer E. A Continuum of Evolving De Novo Genes Drives Protein- Coding Novelty in Drosophila. J Mol Evol. 2020 [cited 8 Apr 2020]. doi:10.1007/s00239-020-09939-z

work page doi:10.1007/s00239-020-09939-z 2020
[65]

Young genes are highly disordered as predicted by the preadaptation hypothesis of de novo gene birth

Wilson BA, Foy SG, Neme R, Masel J. Young genes are highly disordered as predicted by the preadaptation hypothesis of de novo gene birth. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2017;1: 0146. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0146

work page doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0146 2017
[66]

High GC content causes orphan proteins to be intrinsically disordered

Basile W, Sachenkova O, Light S, Elofsson A. High GC content causes orphan proteins to be intrinsically disordered. PLOS Computational Biology. 2017;13: e1005375. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005375

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005375 2017
[67]

The origin and structural evolution of de novo genes in Drosophila

Peng J, Zhao L. The origin and structural evolution of de novo genes in Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2024;15: 810. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45028-1

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45028-1 2024
[68]

Noncoding translation mitigation

Kesner JS, Chen Z, Shi P , Aparicio AO, Murphy MR, Guo Y , et al. Noncoding translation mitigation. Nature. 2023; 1–8. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05946-4

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05946-4 2023
[69]

Degradation determinants are abundant in human noncanonical proteins

Casola C, Owoyemi A, Vakirlis N. Degradation determinants are abundant in human noncanonical proteins. bioRxiv; 2024. p. 2024.05.01.592071. doi:10.1101/2024.05.01.592071

work page doi:10.1101/2024.05.01.592071 2024
[70]

De novo emergence of adaptive membrane proteins from thymine-rich genomic sequences

Vakirlis N, Acar O, Hsu B, Castilho Coelho N, Van Oss SB, Wacholder A, et al. De novo emergence of adaptive membrane proteins from thymine-rich genomic sequences. Nat Commun. 2020;11: 781. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14500-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14500-z 2020
[71]

Intergenic Regions of Saccharomycotina Yeasts are Enriched in Potential to Encode Transmembrane Domains

Tassios E, Nikolaou C, Vakirlis N. Intergenic Regions of Saccharomycotina Yeasts are Enriched in Potential to Encode Transmembrane Domains. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2023;40: msad059. doi:10.1093/molbev/msad059

work page doi:10.1093/molbev/msad059 2023
[72]

The hidden bacterial microproteome

Fesenko I, Sahakyan H, Dhyani R, Shabalina SA, Storz G, Koonin EV . The hidden bacterial microproteome. Molecular Cell. 2025;0. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2025.01.025

work page doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2025.01.025 2025
[73]

Intergenic polyA/T tracts explain the propensity of yeast de novo genes to encode transmembrane domains

Vakirlis N, Fuqua T. Intergenic polyA/T tracts explain the propensity of yeast de novo genes to encode transmembrane domains. j evol Biol. 2025; voaf089. doi:10.1093/jeb/voaf089

work page doi:10.1093/jeb/voaf089 2025
[74]

Cellular processing of beneficial de novo emerging proteins

Houghton CJ, Coelho NC, Chiang A, Hedayati S, Parikh SB, Ozbaki-Yagan N, et al. Cellular processing of beneficial de novo emerging proteins. bioRxiv. 2024; 2024.08.28.610198. doi:10.1101/2024.08.28.610198

work page doi:10.1101/2024.08.28.610198 2024
[75]

The Role of Nucleosome Positioning in the Evolution of Gene Regulation

Tsankov AM, Thompson DA, Socha A, Regev A, Rando OJ. The Role of Nucleosome Positioning in the Evolution of Gene Regulation. PLOS Biology. 2010;8: e1000414. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000414

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000414 2010
[76]

Studying membrane proteins through the eyes of the genetic code revealed a strong uracil bias in their coding mRNAs

Prilusky J, Bibi E. Studying membrane proteins through the eyes of the genetic code revealed a strong uracil bias in their coding mRNAs. PNAS. 2009;106: 6662–6666. doi:10.1073/pnas.0902029106

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0902029106 2009
[77]

Poly(dA:dT) Tracts: Major Determinants of Nucleosome Organization

Segal E, Widom J. Poly(dA:dT) Tracts: Major Determinants of Nucleosome Organization. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2009;19: 65–71. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2009.01.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2009.01.004 2009
[78]

Why transcription factor binding sites are ten nucleotides long

Stewart AJ, Hannenhalli S, Plotkin JB. Why transcription factor binding sites are ten nucleotides long. Genetics. 2012;192: 973–985. doi:10.1534/genetics.112.143370 Fuqua and Vakirlis, page 14

work page doi:10.1534/genetics.112.143370 2012
[79]

Information content of binding sites on nucleotide sequences

Schneider TD, Stormo GD, Gold L, Ehrenfeucht A. Information content of binding sites on nucleotide sequences. J Mol Biol. 1986;188: 415–431. doi:10.1016/0022-2836(86)90165-8

work page doi:10.1016/0022-2836(86)90165-8 1986
[80]

Different gene regulation strategies revealed by analysis of binding motifs

Wunderlich Z, Mirny LA. Different gene regulation strategies revealed by analysis of binding motifs. Trends in Genetics. 2009;25: 434–440. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.08.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.08.003 2009

Showing first 80 references.