4.8 Article

Drosophila X-Linked Genes Have Lower Translation Rates than Autosomal Genes

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 413-428

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msv227

Keywords

Drosophila; codon usage bias; translation rates; sex chromosome

Funding

  1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  2. University of Rochester

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Drosophila, X-linked and autosomal genes achieve comparable expression at the mRNA level. Whether comparable X-autosome gene expression is realized at the translational and, ultimately, the protein levels is, however, unknown. Previous studies suggest the possibility of higher translation rates for X-linked genes owing to stronger usage of preferred codons. In this study, we use public ribosome profiling data from Drosophila melanogaster to infer translation rates on the X chromosome versus the autosomes. We find that X-linked genes have consistently lower ribosome densities than autosomal genes in S2 cells, early embryos, eggs, and mature oocytes. Surprisingly, the lower ribosome densities of X-linked genes are not consistent with faster translation elongation but instead imply slower translation initiation. In particular, X-linked genes have sequence features known to slow translation initiation such as stronger mRNA structure near start codons and longer 5'-UTRs. Comparison to outgroup species suggests that stronger mRNA structure is an evolved feature of Drosophila X chromosomes. Finally, we find that the magnitude of the X-autosome difference in ribosome densities is smaller for genes encoding members of protein complexes, suggesting that stoichiometry constrains the evolution of translation rates. In sum, our analyses suggest that Drosophila X-linked genes have evolved lower translation rates than autosomal genes despite stronger usage of preferred codons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available