4.4 Article

Ancient gene duplications and the root(s) of the tree of life

期刊

PROTOPLASMA
卷 227, 期 1, 页码 53-64

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00709-005-0135-1

关键词

ATPase; GMP synthetase; carbamoyl phosphate synthetase; horizontal gene transfer; paralogous rooting; coalescence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tracing organismal histories on the timescale of the tree of life remains one of the challenging tasks in evolutionary biology. The hotly debated questions include the evolutionary relationship between the three domains of life ( e. g., which of the three domains are sister domains, are the domains para-, poly-, or monophyletic) and the location of the root within the universal tree of life. For the latter, many different points of view have been considered but so far no consensus has been reached. The only widely accepted rationale to root the universal tree of life is to use anciently duplicated paralogous genes that are present in all three domains of life. To date only few anciently duplicated gene families useful for phylogenetic reconstruction have been identified. Here we present results from a systematic search for ancient gene duplications using twelve representative, completely sequenced, archaeal and bacterial genomes. Phylogenetic analyses of identified cases show that the majority of datasets support a root between Archaea and Bacteria; however, some datasets support alternative hypotheses, and all of them suffer from a lack of strong phylogenetic signal. The results are discussed with respect to the impact of horizontal gene transfer on the ability to reconstruct organismal evolution. The exchange of genetic information between divergent organisms gives rise to mosaic genomes, where different genes in a genome have different histories. Simulations show that even low rates of horizontal gene transfer dramatically complicate the reconstruction of organismal evolution, and that the different most recent common molecular ancestors likely existed at different times and in different lineages.

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

4.4
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