Improving genome-wide scans of positive selection by using protein isoforms of similar length

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 457-467

  Villanueva Cañas, José Luis ^a   Laurie, Steve ^a   Albà, M Mar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

^b INSTITUCIÓ CATALANA DE RECERCA I ESTUDIS AVANÇATS ICREA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Alignment; Alternative splicing; Evolutionary rate; Positive selection; Protein isoform

Indexed keywords

EUKARYOTA;

EID: 84876529121     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evt017     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Albà MM, Castresana J. 2005. Inverse relationship between evolutionary rate and age of mammalian genes. Mol Biol Evol. 22:598-606.
2. AnisimovaM, Yang Z. 2007. Multiple hypothesis testing to detect lineages under positive selection that affects only a few sites. Mol Biol Evol. 24: 1219-1228.
3. Arbiza L, Dopazo J, Dopazo H. 2006. Positive selection, relaxation, and acceleration in the evolution of the human and chimp genome. PLoS Comput Biol. 2:e38.
4. Bakewell MA, Shi P, Zhang J. 2007. More genes underwent positive selection in chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104:7489-7494.
5. Carneiro M, et al. 2012. Evidence for widespread positive and purifying selection across the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) genome. Mol Biol Evol. 29:1837-1849.
6. Chen SC-C, Chuang T-J, Li W-H. 2011. The relationships among microRNA regulation, intrinsically disordered regions, and other indicators of protein evolutionary rate. Mol Biol Evol. 28: 2513-2520.
7. Clark AG, et al. 2003. Inferring nonneutral evolution from humanchimp- mouse orthologous gene trios. Science 302:1960-1963.
8. Djebali S, et al. 2012. Landscape of transcription in human cells. Nature 489:101-108.
9. Drummond DA, Raval A, Wilke CO. 2006. A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 23:327-337.
10. Duret L, Mouchiroud D. 2000. Determinants of substitution rates in mammalian genes: expression pattern affects selection intensity but not mutation rate. Mol Biol Evol. 17:68-74.
11. Fletcher W, Yang Z. 2010. The effect of insertions, deletions, and alignment errors on the branch-site test of positive selection. Mol Biol Evol. 27:2257-2267.
12. Flicek P, et al. 2012. Ensembl 2012. Nucleic Acids Res. 40:D84-D90.
13. Gibbs RA, et al. 2007. Evolutionary and biomedical insights from the rhesus macaque genome. Science 316:222-234.
14. Jordan G, Goldman N. 2012. The effects of alignment error and alignment filtering on the sitewise detection of positive selection. Mol Biol Evol. 29:1125-1139.
15. Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T. 2002. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:3059-3066.
16. Katoh K, Toh H. 2008. Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Brief Bioinform. 9:286-298.
17. Kosiol C, et al. 2008. Patterns of positive selection in six Mammalian genomes. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000144.
18. Laurie S, Toll-RieraM, Radó-Trilla N, Albà MM. 2012. Sequence shortening in the rodent ancestor. Genome Res. 22:478-485.
19. Löytynoja A, Goldman N. 2005. An algorithm for progressive multiple alignment of sequences with insertions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 102:10557-10562.
20. Löytynoja A, Goldman N. 2008. Phylogeny-aware gap placement prevents errors in sequence alignment and evolutionary analysis. Science 320: 1632-1635.
21. Mallick S, Gnerre S,Muller P, Reich D. 2009. The difficulty of avoiding false positives in genome scans for natural selection. Genome Res. 19: 922-933.
22. Markova-Raina P, Petrov D. 2011. High sensitivity to aligner and high rate of false positives in the estimates of positive selection in the 12 Drosophila genomes. Genome Res. 21:863-874.
23. Martin JA, Wang Z. 2011. Next-generation transcriptome assembly. Nat Rev Genet. 12:671-682.
24. McInerney JO. 2006. The causes of protein evolutionary rate variation. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:230-232.
25. Miller W, et al. 2007. 28-way vertebrate alignment and conservation track in the UCSC Genome Browser. Genome Res. 17: 1797-1808.
26. Pá l C, Papp B, Hurst L. 2001. Highly expressed genes in yeast evolve slowly. Genetics 158:927-931.
27. Privman E, Penn O, Pupko T. 2012. Improving the performance of positive selection inference by filtering unreliable alignment regions. Mol Biol Evol. 29:1-5.
28. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
29. Schneider A, et al. 2009. Estimates of positive Darwinian selection are inflated by errors in sequencing, annotation, and alignment. Genome Biol Evol. 1:114-118.
30. Suyama M, Torrents D, Bork P. 2006. PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 34:W609-W612.
31. Toll-Riera M, Laurie S, Albà MM. 2011. Lineage-specific variation in intensity of natural selection in mammals. Mol Biol Evol. 28:383-398.
32. Vilella AJ, et al. 2009. EnsemblComparaGeneTrees: complete, duplicationaware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Res. 19:327-335.
33. Waterston RH, et al. 2002. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420:520-562.
34. Wong KM, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP. 2008. Alignment uncertainty and genomic analysis. Science 319:473-476.
35. Yang Z. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1586-1591.
36. Zambelli F, Pavesi G, Gissi C, Horner DS, Pesole G. 2010. Assessment of orthologous splicing isoforms in human and mouse orthologous genes. BMC Genomics 11:534.
37. Zhang J, Nielsen R, Yang Z. 2005. Evaluation of an improved branch-site likelihood method for detecting positive selection at the molecular level. Mol Biol Evol. 22:2472-2479.
38. Zhang L, Li W-H. 2004. Mammalian housekeeping genes evolve more slowly than tissue-specific genes. Mol Biol Evol. 21: 236-239.