Gene family level comparative analysis of gene expression n mammals validates the ortholog conjecture

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 754-762

  Rogozin, Igor B ^a   Managadze, David ^a   Shabalina, Svetlana A ^a   Koonin, Eugene V ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Duplicated genes; Duplication degeneration complementation model; Neofunctionalization model; Neutral evolution; Rebalancing dosage effect model; Selection; Subfunctionalization model

Indexed keywords

RNA; TRANSCRIPTOME;

ANIMAL; BIOSYNTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETICS; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MOUSE; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; DATASETS AS TOPIC; GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; MICE; RNA; TRANSCRIPTOME;

EID: 84902984911     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evu051     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Altenhoff AM, Dessimoz C. 2009. Phylogenetic and functional assessment of orthologs inference projects and methods. PLoS Comput Biol. 5: e1000262.
2. Altenhoff AM, Studer RA, Robinson-Rechavi M, Dessimoz C. 2012. Resolving the ortholog conjecture: orthologs tend to be weakly, but significantly,more similar in function than paralogs. PLoS Comput Biol. 8:e1002514.
3. Amoutzias GD, et al. 2010. Posttranslational regulation impacts the fate of duplicated genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107:2967-2971.
4. Ashburner M, et al. 2000. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 25:25-29.
5. Brawand D, et al. 2011. The evolution of gene expression levels in mammalian organs. Nature 478:343-348.
6. Chen X, Zhang J. 2012. The ortholog conjecture is untestable by the current gene ontology but is supported by RNA sequencing data. PLoS Comput Biol. 8:e1002784.
7. Colbourne JK, et al. 2011. The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex. Science 331:555-561.
8. Conant GC, Wolfe HK. 2008. Turning a hobby into a job: how duplicated genes find new functions. Nat Rev Genet. 9:938-950.
9. Fitch WM. 1970. Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst Zool. 19:99-106.
10. Fitch WM. 2000. Homology a personal view on some of the problems. Trends Genet. 16:227-231.
11. Force A, et al. 1999. Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics 151:1531-1545.
12. Gabaldon T, Koonin VE. 2013. Functional and evolutionary implications of gene orthology. Nat Rev Genet. 14:360-366.
13. He X, Zhang J. 2005. Gene complexity and gene duplicability. Curr Biol. 15:1016-1021.
14. He X, Zhang J. 2006. Higher duplicability of less important genes in yeast genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 23:144-151.
15. Huerta-Cepas J, Dopazo J, Huynen AM, Gabaldon T. 2011. Evidence for short-time divergence and long-time conservation of tissue-specific expression after gene duplication. Brief Bioinform. 12:442-448.
16. Hughes AL. 1994. The evolution of functionally novel proteins after gene duplication. Proc Biol Sci. 256:119-124.
17. Innan H, Kondrashov F. 2010. The evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models. Nat Rev Genet. 11:97-108.
18. Kondrashov FA, Rogozin IB, Wolf IY, Koonin VE. 2002. Selection in the evolution of gene duplications. Genome Biol. 3:RESEARCH0008.
19. Koonin EV. 2005. Orthologs, paralogs, and evolutionary genomics. Annu Rev Genet. 39:309-338.
20. Kristensen DM, Wolf YI, Mushegian RA, Koonin VE. 2011. Computational methods for Gene Orthology inference. Brief Bioinform. 12:379-391.
21. Lespinet O, Wolf YI, Koonin VE, Aravind L. 2002. The role of lineagespecific gene family expansion in the evolution of eukaryotes. Genome Res. 12:1048-1059.
22. Liu SL, Baute JG, Adams KL. 2011. Organ and cell type-specific complementary expression patterns and regulatory neofunctionalization between duplicated genes in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome Biol Evol. 3: 1419-1436.
23. Lynch M. 2002. Genomics. Gene duplication and evolution. Science 297: 945-947.
24. Lynch M. 2007. The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nat Rev Genet. 8:803-813.
25. Lynch M, Katju V. 2004. The altered evolutionary trajectories of gene duplicates. Trends Genet. 20:544-549.
26. Makova KD, Li HW. 2003. Divergence in the spatial pattern of gene expression between human duplicate genes. Genome Res. 13: 1638-1645.
27. Marland E, Prachumwat A, Maltsev N, Gu Z, Li HW. 2004. Higher gene duplicabilities for metabolic proteins than for nonmetabolic proteins in yeast and E. coli. J Mol Evol. 59:806-814.
28. Mortazavi A,Williams BA, McCue K, Schaeffer L,Wold B. 2008. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat Methods. 5:621-628.
29. Nehrt NL, Clark WT, Radivojac P, Hahn WM. 2011. Testing the ortholog conjecture with comparative functional genomic data frommammals. PLoS Comput Biol. 7:e1002073.
30. Newson R. 2002. Parameters behind "nonparametric" statistics: Kendall's tau, Somers' D and median differences. Stata J. 2:45-63.
31. Ohno S. 1970. Evolution by gene duplication. Berlin-Heidelberg-NewYork: Springer-Verlag.
32. Pal C, Papp B, Hurst DL. 2003. Genomic function: rate of evolution and gene dispensability. Nature 421:496-497; discussion 497-498.
33. Pegueroles C, Laurie S, Alba MM. 2013. Accelerated evolution after gene duplication: a time-dependent process affecting just one copy. Mol Biol Evol. 30:1830-1842.
34. Pereira V, Waxman D, Eyre-Walker A. 2009. A problem with the correlation coefficient as a measure of gene expression divergence. Genetics 183:1597-1600.
35. Piasecka B, Robinson-Rechavi M, Bergmann S. 2012. Correcting for the bias due to expression specificity improves the estimation of constrained evolution of expression between mouse and human. Bioinformatics 28:1865-1872.
36. Prachumwat A, Li HW. 2006. Protein function, connectivity, and duplicability in yeast. Mol Biol Evol. 23:30-39.
37. Qian W, Liao BY, Chang YA, Zhang J. 2010. Maintenance of duplicate genes and their functional redundancy by reduced expression. Trends Genet. 26:425-430.
38. Studer RA, Robinson-Rechavi M. 2009. How confident can we be that orthologs are similar, but paralogs differ? Trends Genet. 25: 210-216.
39. Su AI, et al. 2004. A gene atlas of themouse and human protein-encoding transcriptomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 101:6062-6067.
40. Thomas PD, Wood V, Mungall CJ, Lewis ES, Blake AJ. 2012. On the use of gene ontology annotations to assess functional similarity among orthologs and paralogs: a short report. PLoS Comput Biol. 8: e1002386.
41. Trapnell C, et al. 2012. Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nat Protoc. 7: 562-578.
42. Vinogradov AE. 2013. Density peaks of paralog pairs in human and mouse genomes. Gene 527:55-61.
43. Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M. 2009. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet. 10:57-63.
44. Xiong Y, et al. 2010. RNA sequencing shows no dosage compensation of the active X-chromosome. Nat Genet. 42:1043-1047.
45. Yang J, Lusk R, Li HW. 2003. Organismal complexity, protein complexity, and gene duplicability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100: 15661-15665.
46. Zhang J. 2013. Gene duplication. In: Losos J, editor.Princeton guide to evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. p. 397-405.