4.7 Article

Millions of years of evolution preserved: A comprehensive catalog of the processed pseudogenes in the human genome

Journal

GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages 2541-2558

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.1429003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHGRI NIH HHS [NP50 HG02357-01, P50 HG002357] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [P50HG002357] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Processed pseudogenes were created by reverse-transcription of mRNAs; they provide snapshots of ancient genes existing millions of years ago in the genome. To find them in the present-day human, we developed a pipeline using features such as intron-absence, frame-disruption, polyadenylation, and truncation. This has enabled us to identify in recent genome drafts similar to8000 processed pseudogenes (distributed from http://pseudogene.org). Overall, processed pseudogenes are very similar to their closest corresponding human gene, being 94% complete in coding regions, with sequence similarity of 75% for amino acids and 86% for nucleotides. Their chromosomal distribution appears random and dispersed, with the numbers on chromosomes proportional to length, suggesting sustained bombardment over evolution. However, it does vary with GC-content: Processed pseudogenes occur mostly in intermediate GC-content regions. This is similar to Alus but contrasts with functional genes and LI-repeats. Pseudogenes, moreover, have age profiles similar to Alus. The number of pseudogenes associated with a given gene follows a power-law relationship, with a few genes giving rise to many pseudogenes and most giving rise to few. The prevalence of processed pseudogenes agrees well with germ-line gene expression. Highly expressed ribosomal proteins account for similar to20% of the total. Other notables include cyclophilin-A, keratin, GAPDH, and cytochrome c.

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