4.6 Article

Diverse evolutionary rates and gene duplication patterns among families of functional olfactory receptor genes in humans

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282575

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In humans, there are about 400 functional olfactory receptor (OR) genes that detect odors. These OR genes can be divided into tens of families. The OR genes have mainly experienced extensive tandem duplications, resulting in gene gains and losses. However, it is still unknown whether different OR gene families have experienced distinct modes of gene duplication.
In humans, odors are detected by similar to 400 functional olfactory receptor (OR) genes. The superfamily of functional OR genes can be further divided into tens of families. In large part, the OR genes have experienced extensive tandem duplications, which have led to gene gains and losses. However, whether different OR gene families have experienced distinct modes of gene duplication has yet to be reported. We conducted comparative genomic and evolutionary analyses for human functional OR genes. Based on analysis of human-mouse 1-1 orthologs, we found that human functional OR genes show higher-than-average evolutionary rates, and there are significant differences among families of functional OR genes. Via comparison with seven vertebrate outgroups, families of human functional OR genes show different extents of gene synteny conservation. Although the superfamily of human functional OR genes is enriched in tandem and proximal duplications, there are particular families which are enriched in segmental duplications. These findings suggest that human functional OR genes may be governed by different evolutionary mechanisms and that large-scale gene duplications have contributed to the early evolution of human functional OR genes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available