4.6 Article

Viral Proteins Originated De Novo by Overprinting Can Be Identified by Codon Usage: Application to the Gene Nursery of Deltaretroviruses

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003162

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [090005]
  2. Marie Curie Research Fellowship
  3. MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship
  4. MRC [MR/K010565/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/K010565/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A well-known mechanism through which new protein-coding genes originate is by modification of pre-existing genes, e. g. by duplication or horizontal transfer. In contrast, many viruses generate protein-coding genes de novo, via the overprinting of a new reading frame onto an existing (ancestral) frame. This mechanism is thought to play an important role in viral pathogenicity, but has been poorly explored, perhaps because identifying the de novo frames is very challenging. Therefore, a new approach to detect them was needed. We assembled a reference set of overlapping genes for which we could reliably determine the ancestral frames, and found that their codon usage was significantly closer to that of the rest of the viral genome than the codon usage of de novo frames. Based on this observation, we designed a method that allowed the identification of de novo frames based on their codon usage with a very good specificity, but intermediate sensitivity. Using our method, we predicted that the Rex gene of deltaretroviruses has originated de novo by overprinting the Tax gene. Intriguingly, several genes in the same genomic region have also originated de novo and encode proteins that regulate the functions of Tax. Such gene nurseries may be common in viral genomes. Finally, our results confirm that the genomic GC content is not the only determinant of codon usage in viruses and suggest that a constraint linked to translation must influence codon usage.

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

4.6
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