4.3 Article

Near homogeneity of PR2-bias fingerprints in the human genome and their implications in phylogenetic analyses

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
卷 53, 期 4-5, 页码 469-476

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s002390010237

关键词

PR2 biases fingerprints; DNA G plus C contents; phylogenetic analyses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genes of a multicellular organism are heterogeneous in the G+C content, which is particularly true in the third codon position. The extent of deviation from intra-strand equality rule of A = T and G = C (Parity Rule 2, or PR2) is specific for individual amino acids and has been expressed as the PR2-bias fingerprint. Previous results suggested that the PR2-bias fingerprints tend to be similar among the genes of an organism, and the fingerprint of the organism is specific for different taxa, reflecting phylogenetic relationships of organisms. In this study, using coding sequences of a large number of human genes, we examined the intragenomic heterogeneity of their PR2-bias fingerprints in relation to the G+C content of the third codon position (P-3). Result shows that the PR2-bias fingerprint is similar in the wide range of the G+C content at the third codon position (0.30-0.80). This range covers approximately 89% of the genes, and further analysis of the high G+C range (0.80-1.00), where genes with normal PR2-bias fingerprints and those with anomalous fingerprints are mixed, shows that the total of 95% of genes have the similar finger prints. The result indicates that the PR2-bias fingerprint is a unique property of an organism and represents the overall characteristics of the genome. Combined with the previous results that the evolutionary change of the PR2-bias fingerprint is a slow process, PR2-bias fingerprints may be used for the phylogenetic analyses to supplement and augment the conventional methods that use the differences of the sequences of orthologous proteins and nucleic acids. Potential advantages and disadvantages of the PR2-bias fingerprint analysis are discussed.

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

4.3
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