4.8 Article

Evolution of Cis-Regulatory Elements and Regulatory Networks in Duplicated Genes of Arabidopsis

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 169, 期 4, 页码 2982-2991

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.15.00717

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant genomes contain large numbers of duplicated genes that contribute to the evolution of new functions. Following duplication, genes can exhibit divergence in their coding sequence and their expression patterns. Changes in the cis-regulatory element landscape can result in changes in gene expression patterns. High-throughput methods developed recently can identify potential cis-regulatory elements on a genome-wide scale. Here, we use a recent comprehensive data set of DNase I sequencing-identified cis-regulatory binding sites (footprints) at single-base-pair resolution to compare binding sites and network connectivity in duplicated gene pairs in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). We found that duplicated gene pairs vary greatly in their cis-regulatory element architecture, resulting in changes in regulatory network connectivity. Whole-genome duplicates (WGDs) have approximately twice as many footprints in their promoters left by potential regulatory proteins than do tandem duplicates (TDs). The WGDs have a greater average number of footprint differences between paralogs than TDs. The footprints, in turn, result in more regulatory network connections between WGDs and other genes, forming denser, more complex regulatory networks than shown by TDs. When comparing regulatory connections between duplicates, WGDs had more pairs in which the two genes are either partially or fully diverged in their network connections, but fewer genes with no network connections than the TDs. There is evidence of younger TDs and WGDs having fewer unique connections compared with older duplicates. This study provides insights into cis-regulatory element evolution and network divergence in duplicated genes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据