Resolving the ortholog conjecture: Orthologs tend to be weakly, but significantly, more similar in function than paralogs

PLoS Computational Biology

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2012, Pages

  Altenhoff, Adrian M ^a,b   Studer, Romain A ^b,c,d   Robinson Rechavi, Marc ^b,c   Dessimoz, Christophe ^a,b,e  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b SWISS INSTITUTE OF BIOINFORMATICS   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e EUROPEAN BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; ESCHERICHIA COLI;

BIAS VARIATION; CONJECTURE MODEL; FUNCTIONAL ANNOTATION; GO TERMS; ORTHOLOGS; PARALOGS; PHYLOGENOMICS; PROTEIN FUNCTIONS; STANDARD MODEL; TERM FREQUENCY;

PROTEINS;

ARTICLE; CELLULAR DISTRIBUTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ESCHERICHIA COLI; GENE FUNCTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME; HUMAN; INTRON; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; ORTHOLOGY; PARALOGY; PHYLOGENOMICS; PROTEIN FUNCTION; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY; SPECIES COMPARISON; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; YEAST; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR GENETICS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84863639111     PISSN: 1553734X     EISSN: 15537358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002514     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Rentzsch R, Orengo CA, (2009) Protein function prediction-the power of multiplicity. Trends Biotechnol 27: 210-219.
2. Bork P, Dandekar T, Diaz-Lazcoz Y, Eisenhaber F, Huynen M, et al. (1998) Predicting function: from genes to genomes and back. J Mol Biol 283: 707-725.
3. Eisen JA, (1998) Phylogenomics: improving functional predictions for uncharacterized genes by evolutionary analysis. Genome Res 8: 163-167.
4. Tatusov RL, Koonin EV, Lipman DJ, (1997) A genomic perspective on protein families. Science 278: 631-637.
5. Studer RA, Robinson-Rechavi M, (2009) How confident can we be that orthologs are similar, but paralogs differ? Trends Genet 25: 210-216.
6. Altenhoff AM, Dessimoz C, (2009) Phylogenetic and functional assessment of orthologs inference projects and methods. PLoS Comput Biol 5: e1000262.
7. Nehrt NL, Clark WT, Radivojac P, Hahn MW, (2011) Testing the Ortholog Conjecture with Comparative Functional Genomic Data from Mammals. PLoS Comput Biol 7: e1002073.
8. Reference Genome Group of the Gene Ontology Consortium (2009) The Gene Ontology's Reference Genome Project: a unified framework for functional annotation across species. PLoS Comput Biol 5: e1000431.
9. Thomas PD, Wood V, Mungall CJ, Lewis SE, Blake JA, et al. (2012) On the Use of Gene Ontology Annotations to Assess Functional Similarity among Orthologs and Paralogs: A Short Report. PLoS Comput Biol 8: e1002386.
10. Jaccard P, (1901) Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bulletin del la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 37: 547-579.
11. Mirkin B, Koonin E, (2003) A top-down method for building genome classification trees with linear binary hierarchies. In: Janowitz M, Lapointe F, McMorris F, Mirkin B, Robert F, editors. Bioconsensus Providence American Mathematical Society pp. 97-112.
12. du Plessis L, Skunca N, Dessimoz C, (2011) The what, where, how and why of gene ontology-a primer for bioinformaticians. Brief Bioinform 12: 723-735.
13. Sangar V, Blankenberg D, Altman N, Lesk A, (2007) Quantitative sequence-function relationships in proteins based on gene ontology. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 294.
14. Flicek P, Amode MR, Barrell D, Beal K, Brent S, et al. (2012) Ensembl 2012. Nucleic Acids Res 40: D84-90.
15. Wilson CA, Kreychman J, Gerstein M, (2000) Assessing annotation transfer for genomics: quantifying the relations between protein sequence, structure and function through traditional and probabilistic scores. J Mol Biol 297: 233-249.
16. Barrell D, Barrell D, Dimmer E, Dimmer E, Huntley RP, et al. (2009) The GOA database in 2009-an integrated Gene Ontology Annotation resource. Nucl Acids Res 37: D396.
17. Henricson A, Forslund K, Sonnhammer E, (2010) Orthology confers intron position conservation. BMC Genomics 11: 412.
18. Peterson ME, Chen F, Saven JG, Roos DS, Babbitt PC, et al. (2009) Evolutionary constraints on structural similarity in orthologs and paralogs. Protein Sci 18: 1306-1315.
19. Forslund K, Pekkari I, Sonnhammer EL, (2011) Domain architecture conservation in orthologs. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 326.
20. Huerta-Cepas J, Dopazo J, Huynen MA, Gabaldón T, (2011) Evidence for short-time divergence and long-time conservation of tissue-specific expression after gene duplication. Brief bioinform 12: 442-448.
21. Qian W, Zhang J, (2009) Protein Subcellular Relocalization in the Evolution of Yeast Singleton and Duplicate Genes. Genome Biol Evol 1: 198-204.
22. Kimura M, (1983) The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
23. Hubbard TJP, Aken BL, Beal K, Ballester B, Caccamo M, et al. (2007) Ensembl 2007. Nucl Acids Res 35: D610-617.
24. Roth ACJ, Gonnet GH, Dessimoz C, (2008) Algorithm of OMA for large-scale orthology inference. BMC Bioinformatics 9: 518.
25. Altenhoff AM, Schneider A, Gonnet GH, Dessimoz C, (2011) OMA 2011: orthology inference among 1000 complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 39: D289-294.
26. Bairoch A, (2000) The ENZYME database in 2000. Nucleic Acids Res 28: 304-305.
27. Pesquita C, Faria D, Falcão AO, Lord P, Couto FM, (2009) Semantic similarity in biomedical ontologies. PLoS Comput Biol 5: e1000443.
28. Resnik P, (1995) Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy. pp. 448-453 Proc. of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 1995; Montréal, Québec. Morgan Kaufmann.
29. Lin D, (1998) An information-theoretic definition of similarity. pp. 296-304 Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning; 1998; San Francisco, California, United States. ICML '98. Morgan Kaufmann.
30. Schlicker A, Domingues FS, Rahnenführer J, Lengauer T, (2006) A new measure for functional similarity of gene products based on Gene Ontology. BMC Bioinformatics 7: 302.