This is total clickbaity title, and the article itself doesn't reveal the actual genes involved. You can't even tell if the result is surprising because of this. Literally if you were to tell me this title on the street, I would ask you which genes.
The actual article abstract reveals the only really cool part about this.
> Sequence similarity and expression only partly predicted replaceability. Instead, replaceability depended strongly on gene modules: Genes in the same process tended to be similarly replaceable (e.g., sterol biosynthesis) or not (e.g., DNA replication initiation). Simulations confirmed that selection for specific function can maintain replaceability despite extensive sequence divergence.
But of course, paywall.
I really have problems with these 'human readable' but ultimately worthless press release formulas of 1. clickbait title over-exaggerating or missing the actual science 2. little to no data 3. random endorsement trying to explain the impact. The entire chain of delivering the real content is lazy and just passes it off down to the consumer, evidenced by this article which kind of misses the point.
The actual article abstract reveals the only really cool part about this.
> Sequence similarity and expression only partly predicted replaceability. Instead, replaceability depended strongly on gene modules: Genes in the same process tended to be similarly replaceable (e.g., sterol biosynthesis) or not (e.g., DNA replication initiation). Simulations confirmed that selection for specific function can maintain replaceability despite extensive sequence divergence.
But of course, paywall.
I really have problems with these 'human readable' but ultimately worthless press release formulas of 1. clickbait title over-exaggerating or missing the actual science 2. little to no data 3. random endorsement trying to explain the impact. The entire chain of delivering the real content is lazy and just passes it off down to the consumer, evidenced by this article which kind of misses the point.