4.5 Article

Elucidating the Genotype-Phenotype Relationships and Network Perturbations of Human Shared and Specific Disease Genes from an Evolutionary Perspective

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 6, 期 10, 页码 2741-2753

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evu220

关键词

shared disease gene; specific disease gene; edgetic perturbation; drug-induced perturbation; protein evolutionary rates

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research [9/15(354)/2008-EMR-I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, numerous studies have been attempted to determine the extent of variation in evolutionary rates between human disease and nondisease (ND) genes. In our present study, we have considered human autosomal monogenic (Mendelian) disease genes, which were classified into two groups according to the number of phenotypic defects, that is, specific disease (SPD) gene (one gene: one defect) and shared disease (SHD) gene (one gene: multiple defects). Here, we have compared the evolutionary rates of these two groups of genes, that is, SPD genes and SHD genes with respect to ND genes. We observed that the average evolutionary rates are slow in SHD group, intermediate in SPD group, and fast in ND group. Group-to-group evolutionary rate differences remain statistically significant regardless of their gene expression levels and number of defects. We demonstrated that disease genes are under strong selective constraint if they emerge through edgetic perturbation or drug-induced perturbation of the interactome network, show tissue-restricted expression, and are involved in transmembrane transport. Among all the factors, our regression analyses interestingly suggest the independent effects of 1) drug-induced perturbation and 2) the interaction term of expression breadth and transmembrane transport on protein evolutionary rates. We reasoned that the drug-induced network disruption is a combination of several edgetic perturbations and, thus, has more severe effect on gene phenotypes.

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

4.5
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