4.7 Article

The functional genomic distribution of protein divergence in two animal phyla: Coevolution, genomic conflict, and constraint

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 802-811

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.2195604

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compare the functional spectrum of protein evolution in two separate animal lineages with respect to two hypotheses: (1) rates of divergence are distributed similarly among functional classes within both lineages, indicating that selective pressure on the proteome is largely independent of organismic-level biological requirements; and (2) rates of divergence are distributed differently among functional classes within each lineage, indicating species-specific selective regimes impact genome-wide substitutional patterns. Integrating comparative genome sequence with data from tissue-specific expressed-sequence-tag (EST) libraries and detailed database annotations, we find a functional genomic signature of rapid evolution and selective constraint shared between mammalian and nematode lineages despite their extensive morphological and ecological differences and distant common ancestry. In both phyla, we find evidence of accelerated evolution among components of molecular systems involved in coevolutionary change. In mammals, lineage-specific fast evolving genes include those involved in reproduction, immunity, and possibly, maternal-fetal conflict. Likelihood ratio tests provide evidence for positive selection in these rapidly evolving functional categories in mammals. In contrast, slowly evolving genes, in terms of amino acid or insertion/deletion (indel) change, in both phyla are involved in core molecular processes such as transcription, translation, and protein transport. Thus, strong purifying selection appears to act on the same core cellular processes in both mammalian and nematode lineages, whereas positive and/or relaxed selection acts on different biological processes in each lineage.

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