4.8 Article

Use of genomic history to improve phylogeny and understanding of births and deaths in a gene family

期刊

PLANT JOURNAL
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 409-419

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02540.x

关键词

expansins; comparative genomics of rice and Arabidopsis; gene family phylogeny; gene birth and death; expansin evolution; genome duplication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyploidy events have played an important role in the evolution of angiosperm genomes. Here, we demonstrate how genomic histories can increase phylogenetic resolution in a gene family, specifically the expansin superfamily of cell wall proteins. There are 36 expansins in Arabidopsis and 58 in rice. Traditional sequence-based phylogenetic trees yield poor resolution below the family level. To improve upon these analyses, we searched for gene colinearity (microsynteny) between Arabidopsis and rice genomic segments containing expansin genes. Multiple rounds of genome duplication and extensive gene loss have obscured synteny. However, by simultaneously aligning groups of up to 10 potentially orthologous segments from the two species, we traced the history of 49 out of 63 expansin-containing segments back to the ancestor of monocots and eudicots. Our results indicate that this ancestor had 15-17 expansin genes, each ancestral to an extant clade. Some clades have strikingly different growth patterns in the rice and Arabidopsis lineages, with more than half of all rice expansins arising from two ancestral genes. Segmental duplications, most of them part of polyploidy events, account for 12 out of 21 new expansin genes in Arabidopsis and 16 out of 44 in rice. Tandem duplications explain most of the rest. We were also able to estimate a minimum of 28 gene deaths in the Arabidopsis lineage and nine in rice. This analysis greatly clarifies expansin evolution since the last common ancestor of monocots and eudicots and the method should be broadly applicable to many other gene families.

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