4.7 Article

Sequence shortening in the rodent ancestor

Journal

GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 478-485

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.121897.111

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Generalitat de Catalunya
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [BIO2009-08160]
  3. Fundacion Javier Lamas
  4. Fundacio Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats
  5. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Insertions and deletions (indels), together with nucleotide substitutions, are major drivers of sequence evolution. An excess of deletions over insertions in genomic sequences-the so-called deletional bias-has been reported in a wide range of species, including mammals. However, this bias has not been found in the coding sequences of some mammalian species, such as human and mouse. To determine the strength of the deletional bias in mammals, and the influence of mutation and selection, we have quantified indels in both neutrally evolving noncoding sequences and protein-coding sequences, in six mammalian branches: human, macaque, ancestral primate, mouse, rat, and ancestral rodent. The results obtained with an improved algorithm for the placement of insertions in multiple alignments, Prank(+F), indicate that contrary to previous results, the only mammalian branch with a strong deletional bias is the rodent ancestral branch. We estimate that such a bias has resulted in an similar to 2.5% sequence loss of mammalian syntenic region in the ancestor of the mouse and rat. Further, a comparison of coding and noncoding sequences shows that negative selection is acting more strongly against mutations generating amino acid insertions than against mutations resulting in amino acid deletions. The strength of selection against indels is found to be higher in the rodent branches than in the primate branches, consistent with the larger effective population sizes of the rodents.

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