4.7 Article

Arboretum: Reconstruction and analysis of the evolutionary history of condition-specific transcriptional modules

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1039-1050

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.146233.112

关键词

-

资金

  1. Computing Innovation Fellow (CIF)
  2. HHMI
  3. Human Frontiers Science Program
  4. Broad Institute, an NIH PIONEER award [NIH R01 2R01CA119176-01]
  5. Burroughs-Wellcome Fund Career Award at the Scientific Interface
  6. Sloan Foundation
  7. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [0644282] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative functional genomics studies the evolution of biological processes by analyzing functional data, such as gene expression profiles, across species. A major challenge is to compare profiles collected in a complex phylogeny. Here, we present Arboretum, a novel scalable computational algorithm that integrates expression data from multiple species with species and gene phylogenies to infer modules of coexpressed genes in extant species and their evolutionary histories. We also develop new, generally applicable measures of conservation and divergence in gene regulatory modules to assess the impact of changes in gene content and expression on module evolution. We used Arboretum to study the evolution of the transcriptional response to heat shock in eight species of Ascomycota fungi and to reconstruct modules of the ancestral environmental stress response (ESR). We found substantial conservation in the stress response across species and in the reconstructed components of the ancestral ESR modules. The greatest divergence was in the most induced stress, primarily through module expansion. The divergence of the heat stress response exceeds that observed in the response to glucose depletion in the same species. Arboretum and its associated analyses provide a comprehensive framework to systematically study regulatory evolution of condition-specific responses.

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