4.7 Article

Evolution of cis-regulatory elements in yeast de novo and duplicated new genes

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-717

关键词

De novo gene; Regulatory evolution; TFBS turnover; Promoter architecture

资金

  1. National Science Council of Taiwan [99-2621-B-001-005-MY2, NSC100-2628-E-001-006-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: New genes that originate from non-coding DNA rather than being duplicated from parent genes are called de novo genes. Their short evolution time and lack of parent genes provide a chance to study the evolution of cis-regulatory elements in the initial stage of gene emergence. Although a few reports have discussed cis-regulatory elements in new genes, knowledge of the characteristics of these elements in de novo genes is lacking. Here, we conducted a comprehensive investigation to depict the emergence and establishment of cis-regulatory elements in de novo yeast genes. Results: In a genome-wide investigation, we found that the number of transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) in de novo genes of S. cerevisiae increased rapidly and quickly became comparable to the number of TFBSs in established genes. This phenomenon might have resulted from certain characteristics of de novo genes; namely, a relatively frequent gain of TFBSs, an unexpectedly high number of preexisting TFBSs, or lower selection pressure in the promoter regions of the de novo genes. Furthermore, we identified differences in the promoter architecture between de novo genes and duplicated new genes, suggesting that distinct regulatory strategies might be employed by genes of different origin. Finally, our functional analyses of the yeast de novo genes revealed that they might be related to reproduction. Conclusions: Our observations showed that de novo genes and duplicated new genes possess mutually distinct regulatory characteristics, implying that these two types of genes might have different roles in evolution.

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