4.8 Article

Purifying Selection on Exonic Splice Enhancers in Intronless Genes

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 1396-1418

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msw018

关键词

avoidance selection; intronless genes; exonic splice enhancers; SR proteins; splice control

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds PhD fellowship
  2. ERC Advanced grant [ERC-2014-ADG 669207]
  3. MRC grant [MR/L007215/1]
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/L007215/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MR/L007215/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exonic splice enhancers (ESEs) are short nucleotide motifs, enriched near exon ends, that enhance the recognition of the splice site and thus promote splicing. Are intronless genes under selection to avoid these motifs so as not to attract the splicing machinery to an mRNA that should not be spliced, thereby preventing the production of an aberrant transcript? Consistent with this possibility, we find that ESEs in putative recent retrocopies are at a higher density and evolving faster than those in other intronless genes, suggesting that they are being lost. Moreover, intronless genes are less dense in putative ESEs than intron-containing ones. However, this latter difference is likely due to the skewed base composition of intronless sequences, a skew that is in line with the general GC richness of few exon genes. Indeed, after controlling for such biases, we find that both intronless and intron-containing genes are denser in ESEs than expected by chance. Importantly, nucleotide-controlled analysis of evolutionary rates at synonymous sites in ESEs indicates that the ESEs in intronless genes are under purifying selection in both human and mouse. We conclude that on the loss of introns, some but not all, ESE motifs are lost, the remainder having functions beyond a role in splice promotion. These results have implications for the design of intronless transgenes and for understanding the causes of selection on synonymous sites.

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