4.8 Article

Genome evolution and developmental constraint in Caenorhabditis elegans

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 728-735

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004131

Keywords

comparative genomics; genome evolution; microarray analysis; developmental constraint; gene duplication; gene expression; molecular evolution

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 58423, GM 0035] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been hypothesized that evolutionary changes will be more frequent in later ontogeny than early ontogeny because of developmental constraint. To test this hypothesis, a genomewide examination of molecular evolution through ontogeny was carried out using comparative genomic data in Caenorhabditis elegans and Caenorhabditis briggsae. We found that the mean rate of amino acid replacement is not significantly different between genes expressed during and after embryogenesis. However, synonymous substitution rates differed significantly between these two classes. A genomewide survey of correlation between codon bias and expression level found codon bias to be significantly correlated with mRNA expression (r(s) = -0.30 and P < 10-(131)) but does not alone explain difference, in dS between classes. Surprisingly. it was found that genes expressed after embryogenesis have a significantly greater number of duplicates in both the C. elegans and C briggsae genomes (P < 10(-20) and P < 10(-13)) when compared with early-expressed and nonmodulated genes. A similarity in the distribution of duplicates of nonmodulated and early-expressed genes, as well as a disproportionately higher number of early pseudogenes, lend support to the hypothesis that this difference in duplicate number is caused by selection against gene duplicates of early-expressed genes. reflecting developmental constraint. Developmental constraint at the level of gene duplication may have important implications for macroevolutionary change.

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