4.7 Article

In silico identification and Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of multiple new mammalian kallikrein gene families

Journal

GENOMICS
Volume 88, Issue 5, Pages 591-599

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2006.06.001

Keywords

kallikreins; phylogenetics; Bayesian analysis; gene duplication; gene families

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Kallikrein gene families have been identified previously in genomes of the human, the mouse, and the rat, and individual kallikrein-like genes have been found in many more species. This study presents the in silico identification of kallikrein gene families in the recently sequenced genomes of four additional mammalian species, the chimpanzee, the dog, the pig, and the opossum. Phylogenies were constructed with gene sequences from all seven mammalian families, using Bayesian analysis, which clarified the evolutionary relationships between these genes. Individual gene sequences, as well as concatenated constructs of multiple sequences, were used. Fifteen kallikrein genes were located in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genome, while only 14 were identified in the canine (Canis familiaris) genome as no orthologue to human KLK3 was found. Thirteen genes were identified from the pig (Sits scrofa) genome, which lacked homologues to KLK2 and KLK3, and 11 genes, orthologous to human KLK5 through KLK15, were found in the opossum (Monodelphis domestica) genome. No kallikrein genes were identified from the available genome sequences of the chicken (Gallus gallus) or African clawed frog (Xenopus tropicalis). Within the family of kallikreins several subfamilies were suggested by phylogenetic analysis. One consisted of KLK4, KLK5, and KLK14; another of KLK9, KLK11, and KLK15; a third of KLK10 and KLK12; a fourth of KLK6 and KLK13; and finally one of KLK8 and the classical kallikreins (KLK1, KLK2, and KLK3). (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available