How old is my gene?

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 659-668

  Capra, John A ^a   Stolzer, Maureen ^b   Durand, Dannie ^b,c   Pollard, Katherine S ^d  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

^d GLADSTONE INSTITUTES   (United States)

Author keywords

Eukaryotes; Gene age; Molecular clock; Phylogenetics

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A SYNTHASE; MEMBRANE ASSOCIATED GUANYLATE CYCLASE KINASE;

AGE; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA; CELL INTERACTION; CONVERGENT EVOLUTION; DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DNA SEQUENCE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; GALLUS GALLUS; GENE; GENE CONVERSION; GENE DUPLICATION; GENE FUNCTION; GENE INTERACTION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; MOLECULAR CLOCK; MONOSIGA BREVICOLLIS; MULTIGENE FAMILY; MUS MUSCULUS; NONHUMAN; PDZ DOMAIN; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PUFFER FISH; RAT; REVIEW; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE; SHARK; XENOPUS TROPICALIS; ZEBRA FISH;

EUKARYOTA;

EUKARYOTES; GENE AGE; MOLECULAR CLOCK; PHYLOGENETICS;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, GENETIC; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES; MODELS, GENETIC; PALEONTOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 84886294241     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2013.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Kaessmann H. Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes. Genome Res. 2010, 20:1313-1326.
2. Domazet-Loso T., Tautz D. A phylogenetically based transcriptome age index mirrors ontogenetic divergence patterns. Nature 2010, 468:815-818.
3. Alba M.M., Castresana J. Inverse relationship between evolutionary rate and age of mammalian genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2005, 22:598-606.
4. Cai J.J., et al. Accelerated evolutionary rate may be responsible for the emergence of lineage-specific genes in Ascomycota. J. Mol. Evol. 2006, 63:1-11.
5. Wolf Y.I., et al. The universal distribution of evolutionary rates of genes and distinct characteristics of eukaryotic genes of different apparent ages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:7273-7280.
6. Cai J.J., et al. Broker genes in human disease. Genome Biol. Evol. 2010, 2:815-825.
7. Vishnoi A., et al. Young proteins experience more variable selection pressures than old proteins. Genome Res. 2010, 20:1574-1581.
8. Qin H., et al. Evolution of the yeast protein interaction network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003, 100:12820-12824.
9. Kim W.K., Marcotte E.M. Age-dependent evolution of the yeast protein interaction network suggests a limited role of gene duplication and divergence. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2008, 4:e1000232.
10. Capra J.A., et al. Novel genes exhibit distinct patterns of function acquisition and network integration. Genome Biol. 2010, 11:R127.
11. Milinkovitch M.C., et al. Historical constraints on vertebrate genome evolution. Genome Biol. Evol. 2010, 2:13-18.
12. Nagaraj S.H., et al. The interplay between evolution, regulation and tissue specificity in the human hereditary diseasome. BMC Genomics 2010, 11(Suppl. 4):S23.
13. Warnefors M., Eyre-Walker A. The accumulation of gene regulation through time. Genome Biol. Evol. 2011, 3:667-673.
14. Dittmar K., Liberles D.A. Evolution after Gene Duplication 2010, Wiley-Blackwell.
15. Gu Z., et al. Role of duplicate genes in genetic robustness against null mutations. Nature 2003, 421:63-66.
16. Liao B.Y., Zhang J. Mouse duplicate genes are as essential as singletons. Trends Genet. 2007, 23:378-381.
17. Su Z., Gu X. Predicting the proportion of essential genes in mouse duplicates based on biased mouse knockout genes. J. Mol. Evol. 2008, 67:705-709.
18. Makino T., et al. The complex relationship of gene duplication and essentiality. Trends Genet. 2009, 25:152-155.
19. Chen W.H., et al. Younger genes are less likely to be essential than older genes, and duplicates are less likely to be essential than singletons of the same age. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29:1703-1706.
20. Cai J.J., et al. Similarly strong purifying selection acts on human disease genes of all evolutionary ages. Genome Biol. Evol. 2009, 1:131-144.
21. Domazet-Loso T., Tautz D. Phylostratigraphic tracking of cancer genes suggests a link to the emergence of multicellularity in Metazoa. BMC Biol. 2010, 8:66.
22. Sakarya O., et al. A post-synaptic scaffold at the origin of the Animal Kingdom. PLoS ONE 2007, 2:e506.
23. Wheeler D., et al. An orphaned mammalian beta-globin gene of ancient evolutionary origin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98:1101-1106.
24. Durand D., Hoberman R. Diagnosing duplications: can it be done?. Trends Genet. 2006, 22:156-164.
25. Farris J.S. Phylogenetic analysis under Dollo's Law. Syst. Zool. 1977, 26:77-88.
26. Domazet-Loso T., et al. A phylostratigraphy approach to uncover the genomic history of major adaptations in metazoan lineages. Trends Genet. 2007, 23:533-539.
27. Domazet-Loso T., Tautz D. An ancient evolutionary origin of genes associated with human genetic diseases. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008, 25:2699-2707.
28. Swofford D.L., Maddison W.P. Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsimony. Math. Biosci. 1987, 87:199-229.
29. Doyon J.P., et al. Models, algorithms and programs for phylogeny reconciliation. Brief. Bioinform. 2011, 12:392-400.
30. Nakhleh L., et al. Gene trees, species trees, and species networks. Meta-analysis and Combining Information in Genetics 2009, 275-293. Chapman & Hall, CRC Press. R. Guerra, D. Goldstein (Eds.).
31. Hirschey M.D., et al. Sirt1 and Sirt3 deacetylate homologous substrates: Acecs1,2 and Hmgcs1,2. Aging 2011, 3:635-642.
32. Vernot B., et al. Reconciliation with non-binary species trees. J. Comput. Biol. 2008, 15:981-1006.
33. Stolzer M., et al. Inferring duplications, losses, transfers and incomplete lineage sorting with nonbinary species trees. Bioinformatics 2012, 28:i409-i415.
34. Rasmussen M.D., Kellis M. Unified modeling of gene duplication, loss, and coalescence using a locus tree. Genome Res. 2012, 22:755-765.
35. Salichos L., Rokas A. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 2013, 497:327-331.
36. Csuros M. Count: evolutionary analysis of phylogenetic profiles with parsimony and likelihood. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:1910-1912.
37. De Bie T., et al. Cafe: a computational tool for the study of gene family evolution. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:1269-1271.
38. Akerborg O., et al. Simultaneous Bayesian gene tree reconstruction and reconciliation analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:5714-5719.
39. Gorecki P., et al. Maximum likelihood models and algorithms for gene tree evolution with duplications and losses. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12(Suppl. 1):S15.
40. Funke L., et al. Membrane-associated guanylate kinases regulate adhesion and plasticity at cell junctions. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2005, 74:219-245.
41. de Mendoza A., et al. Evolution of the Maguk protein gene family in premetazoan lineages. BMC Evol. Biol. 2010, 10:93.
42. Zheng C.Y., et al. Maguks, synaptic development, and synaptic plasticity. Neuroscientist 2011, 17:493-512.
43. Eastwood D.C., et al. The plant cell wall-decomposing machinery underlies the functional diversity of forest fungi. Science 2011, 333:762-765.
44. Floudas D., et al. The Paleozoic origin of enzymatic lignin decomposition reconstructed from 31 fungal genomes. Science 2012, 336:1715-1719.
45. Thomas, L., ed. (2012) Origin of coal. In Coal Geology, pp. 3-52, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118385685.
46. Harms M.J., Thornton J.W. Analyzing protein structure and function using ancestral gene reconstruction. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2010, 20:360-366.
47. Dean A.M., Thornton J.W. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8:675-688.
48. Robinson R. Resurrecting an ancient enzyme to address gene duplication. PLoS Biol. 2012, 10:e1001447.
49. Capra J.A., et al. Proteinhistorian: tools for the comparative analysis of eukaryote protein origin. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2012, 8:e1002567.
50. Schrider D.R., et al. All human-specific gene losses are present in the genome as pseudogenes. J. Comput. Biol. 2009, 16:1419-1427.
51. Kelley J.L. Systematic underestimation of the age of selected alleles. Front. Genet. 2012, 3:165.
52. Yang Z., Rannala B. Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:212-226.
53. Elhaik E., et al. The 'inverse relationship between evolutionary rate and age of mammalian genes' is an artifact of increased genetic distance with rate of evolution and time of divergence. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23:1-3.
54. Graur D., Martin W. Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision. Trends Genet. 2004, 20:80-86.
55. Drummond A.J., et al. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4:e88.
56. Willerslev E., Cooper A. Ancient DNA. Proc. R. Soc. B 2005, 272:3-16.
57. Alba M.M., Castresana J. On homology searches by protein blast and the characterization of the age of genes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7:53.
58. Altschul S.F., et al. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 215:403-410.
59. Altschul S.F., et al. Gapped Blast and Psi-Blast: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25:3389-3402.
60. Eddy S.R. Accelerated profile hmm searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2011, 7:e1002195.
61. Soding J., et al. The HHpred interactive server for protein homology detection and structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33:W244-W248.
62. Murzin A.G., et al. Scop: a structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J. Mol. Biol. 1995, 247:536-540.
63. Sillitoe I., et al. New functional families (Funfams) in CATH to improve the mapping of conserved functional sites to 3D structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41:D490-D498.
64. Winstanley H.F., et al. How old is your fold?. Bioinformatics 2005, 21(Suppl. 1):i449-i458.
65. Li L., et al. Orthomcl: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res. 2003, 13:2178-2189.
66. Remm M., et al. Automatic clustering of orthologs and in-paralogs from pairwise species comparisons. J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 314:1041-1052.
67. Altenhoff A.M., Dessimoz C. Phylogenetic and functional assessment of orthologs inference projects and methods. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5:e1000262.
68. Salichos L., Rokas A. Evaluating ortholog prediction algorithms in a yeast model clade. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e18755.
69. Trachana K., et al. Orthology prediction methods: a quality assessment using curated protein families. Bioessays 2011, 33:769-780.
70. Guindon S., et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of Phyml 3.0. Syst. Biol. 2010, 59:307-321.
71. Katoh K., Standley D.M. Mafft Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30:772-780.
72. Sayers E.W., et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:D5-D15.
73. Kumar S., Hedges S.B. Timetree2: species divergence times on the iPhone. Bioinformatics 2011, 27:2023-2024.