4.7 Article

Comparative genome analysis across a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms: Specialization and diversification in the Fungi

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 1809-1822

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.6531807

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/B/17166, BBS/B/17174] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/B/17166, BBS/B/17174] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent proliferation of genome sequencing in diverse fungal species has provided the first opportunity for comparative genome analysis across a eukaryotic kingdom. Here, we report a comparative study of 34 complete fungal genome sequences, representing a broad diversity of Ascomycete, Basidiomycete, and Zygomycete species. We have clustered all predicted protein-encoding gene sequences from these species to provide a means of investigating gene innovations, gene family expansions, protein family diversification, and the conservation of essential gene functions-empirically determined in Saccharomyces cerevisiae-among the fungi. The results are presented with reference to a phylogeny of the 34 fungal species, based on 29 universally conserved protein-encoding gene sequences. We contrast this phylogeny with one based on gene presence and absence and show that, while the two phylogenies are largely in agreement, there are differences in the positioning of some species. We have investigated levels of gene duplication and demonstrate that this varies greatly between fungal species, although there are instances of coduplication in distantly related fungi. We have also investigated the extent of orthology for protein families and demonstrate unexpectedly high levels of diversity among genes involved in lipid metabolism. These analyses have been collated in the e-Fungi data warehouse, providing an online resource for comparative genomic analysis of the fungi.

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

4.7
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