4.8 Article

Selective modes determine evolutionary rates, gene compactness and expression patterns in Brassica

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 34-44

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tpj.13541

关键词

Brassica; nonsynonymous substitution; positive selection; purifying selection; synonymous substitution

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370266]
  2. Jiangsu Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Fund [CX(14)5010]
  3. Key Laboratory of Biology and Genetic Improvement of Oil Crops, Ministry of Agriculture of People's Republic of China [2016002]
  4. Jiangsu Province for Postdoctoral Research Fund [1501143C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been well documented that most nuclear protein-coding genes in organisms can be classified into two categories: positively selected genes (PSGs) and negatively selected genes (NSGs). The characteristics and evolutionary fates of different types of genes, however, have been poorly understood. In this study, the rates of nonsynonymous substitution (K-a) and the rates of synonymous substitution (K-s) were investigated by comparing the orthologs between the two sequenced Brassica species, Brassica rapa and Brassica oleracea, and the evolutionary rates, gene structures, expression patterns, and codon bias were compared between PSGs and NSGs. The resulting data show that PSGs have higher protein evolutionary rates, lower synonymous substitution rates, shorter gene length, fewer exons, higher functional specificity, lower expression level, higher tissue-specific expression and stronger codon bias than NSGs. Although the quantities and values are different, the relative features of PSGs and NSGs have been largely verified in the model species Arabidopsis. These data suggest that PSGs and NSGs differ not only under selective pressure (K-a/K-s), but also in their evolutionary, structural and functional properties, indicating that selective modes may serve as a determinant factor for measuring evolutionary rates, gene compactness and expression patterns in Brassica.

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