Why Is the Correlation between Gene Importance and Gene Evolutionary Rate So Weak?
One of the few commonly believed principles of molecular evolution is that functionally more important genes (or DNA sequences) evolve more slowly than less important ones. This principle is widely used by molecular biologists in daily practice. However, recent genomic analysis of a diverse array of organisms found only weak, negative correlations between the evolutionary rate of a gene and its functional importance, typically measured under a single benign lab condition. A frequently suggested cause of the above finding is that gene importance determined in the lab differs from that in an organism's natural environment. Here, we test this hypothesis in yeast using gene importance values experimentally determined in 418 lab conditions or computationally predicted for 10,000 nutritional conditions. In no single condition or combination of conditions did we find a much stronger negative correlation, which is explainable by our subsequent finding that always-essential (enzyme) genes do not evolve significantly more slowly than sometimes-essential or always-nonessential ones. Furthermore, we verified that functional density, approximated by the fraction of amino acid sites within protein domains, is uncorrelated with gene importance. Thus, neither the lab-nature mismatch nor a potentially biased among-gene distribution of functional density explains the observed weakness of the correlation between gene importance and evolutionary rate. We conclude that the weakness is factual, rather than artifactual. In addition to being weakened by population genetic reasons, the correlation is likely to have been further weakened by the presence of multiple nontrivial rate determinants that are independent from gene importance. These findings notwithstanding, we show that the principle of slower evolution of more important genes does have some predictive power when genes with vastly different evolutionary rates are compared, explaining why the principle can be practically useful despite the weakness of the correlation.
Vyšlo v časopise:
Why Is the Correlation between Gene Importance and Gene Evolutionary Rate So Weak?. PLoS Genet 5(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000329
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000329
Souhrn
One of the few commonly believed principles of molecular evolution is that functionally more important genes (or DNA sequences) evolve more slowly than less important ones. This principle is widely used by molecular biologists in daily practice. However, recent genomic analysis of a diverse array of organisms found only weak, negative correlations between the evolutionary rate of a gene and its functional importance, typically measured under a single benign lab condition. A frequently suggested cause of the above finding is that gene importance determined in the lab differs from that in an organism's natural environment. Here, we test this hypothesis in yeast using gene importance values experimentally determined in 418 lab conditions or computationally predicted for 10,000 nutritional conditions. In no single condition or combination of conditions did we find a much stronger negative correlation, which is explainable by our subsequent finding that always-essential (enzyme) genes do not evolve significantly more slowly than sometimes-essential or always-nonessential ones. Furthermore, we verified that functional density, approximated by the fraction of amino acid sites within protein domains, is uncorrelated with gene importance. Thus, neither the lab-nature mismatch nor a potentially biased among-gene distribution of functional density explains the observed weakness of the correlation between gene importance and evolutionary rate. We conclude that the weakness is factual, rather than artifactual. In addition to being weakened by population genetic reasons, the correlation is likely to have been further weakened by the presence of multiple nontrivial rate determinants that are independent from gene importance. These findings notwithstanding, we show that the principle of slower evolution of more important genes does have some predictive power when genes with vastly different evolutionary rates are compared, explaining why the principle can be practically useful despite the weakness of the correlation.
Zdroje
1. KarpG
2008 Cell and Molecular Biology Hoboken, New Jersey John Wiley & Sons, Inc
2. JordanIK
RogozinIB
WolfYI
KooninEV
2002 Essential genes are more evolutionarily conserved than are nonessential genes in bacteria. Genome Res 12 962 968
3. WallDP
HirshAE
FraserHB
KummJ
GiaeverG
2005 Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102 5483 5488
4. LiaoBY
ScottNM
ZhangJ
2006 Impacts of gene essentiality, expression pattern, and gene compactness on the evolutionary rate of mammalian proteins. Mol Biol Evol 23 2072 2080
5. RochaEP
DanchinA
2004 An analysis of determinants of amino acids substitution rates in bacterial proteins. Mol Biol Evol 21 108 116
6. HurstLD
SmithNG
1999 Do essential genes evolve slowly? Curr Biol 9 747 750
7. HirshAE
FraserHB
2001 Protein dispensability and rate of evolution. Nature 411 1046 1049
8. YangJ
GuZ
LiWH
2003 Rate of protein evolution versus fitness effect of gene deletion. Mol Biol Evol 20 772 774
9. WolfYI
CarmelL
KooninEV
2006 Unifying measures of gene function and evolution. Proc Biol Sci 273 1507 1515
10. ZhangJ
HeX
2005 Significant impact of protein dispensability on the instantaneous rate of protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol 22 1147 1155
11. KrylovDM
WolfYI
RogozinIB
KooninEV
2003 Gene loss, protein sequence divergence, gene dispensability, expression level, and interactivity are correlated in eukaryotic evolution. Genome Res 13 2229 2235
12. KimuraM
1983 The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution Cambridge Cambridge University Press
13. KimuraM
1968 Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217 624 626
14. KingJL
JukesTH
1969 Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 164 788 798
15. KimuraM
OhtaT
1974 On some principles governing molecular evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 71 2848 2852
16. WilsonAC
CarlsonSS
WhiteTJ
1977 Biochemical evolution. Annu Rev Biochem 46 573 639
17. WolfYI
2006 Coping with the quantitative genomics ‘elephant’: the correlation between the gene dispensability and evolution rate. Trends Genet 22 354 357
18. PappB
PalC
HurstLD
2004 Metabolic network analysis of the causes and evolution of enzyme dispensability in yeast. Nature 429 661 664
19. HillenmeyerME
FungE
WildenhainJ
PierceSE
HoonS
2008 The chemical genomic portrait of yeast: uncovering a phenotype for all genes. Science 320 362 365
20. FayJC
BenavidesJA
2005 Evidence for domesticated and wild populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 1 66 71
21. PriceND
ReedJL
PalssonBO
2004 Genome-scale models of microbial cells: evaluating the consequences of constraints. Nat Rev Microbiol 2 886 897
22. EdwardsJS
CovertM
PalssonBO
2002 Metabolic Modeling of Microbes: the Flux Balance Approach. Environ Microbiol 4 133 140
23. SteinmetzLM
ScharfeC
DeutschbauerAM
MokranjacD
HermanZS
2002 Systematic screen for human disease genes in yeast. Nat Genet 31 400 404
24. LiaoBY
ZhangJ
2008 Null mutations in human and mouse orthologs frequently result in different phenotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 6987 6992
25. DuarteNC
HerrgardMJ
PalssonBO
2004 Reconstruction and validation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae iND750, a fully compartmentalized genome-scale metabolic model. Genome Res 14 1298 1309
26. BurgardAP
NikolaevEV
SchillingCH
MaranasCD
2004 Flux coupling analysis of genome-scale metabolic network reconstructions. Genome Res 14 301 312
27. SnitkinES
DudleyAM
JanseDM
WongK
ChurchGM
2008 Model-driven analysis of experimentally determined growth phenotypes for 465 yeast gene deletion mutants under 16 different conditions. Genome Biol 9 R140
28. ForsterJ
FamiliI
PalssonBO
NielsenJ
2003 Large-scale evaluation of in silico gene deletions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Omics 7 193 202
29. SegreD
VitkupD
ChurchGM
2002 Analysis of optimality in natural and perturbed metabolic networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99 15112 15117
30. KondrashovAS
SunyaevS
KondrashovFA
2002 Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities in protein evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99 14878 14883
31. GaoL
ZhangJ
2003 Why are some human disease-associated mutations fixed in mice? Trends Genet 19 678 681
32. CopleyRR
DoerksT
LetunicI
BorkP
2002 Protein domain analysis in the era of complete genomes. FEBS Lett 513 129 134
33. HuloN
BairochA
BulliardV
CeruttiL
De CastroE
2006 The PROSITE database. Nucleic Acids Res 34 D227 230
34. MulderNJ
ApweilerR
2008 The InterPro database and tools for protein domain analysis. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Chapter 2 Unit 2.7
35. PalC
PappB
HurstLD
2001 Highly expressed genes in yeast evolve slowly. Genetics 158 927 931
36. DrummondDA
WilkeCO
2008 Mistranslation-induced protein misfolding as a dominant constraint on coding-sequence evolution. Cell 134 341 352
37. DrummondDA
RavalA
WilkeCO
2006 A single determinant dominates the rate of yeast protein evolution. Mol Biol Evol 23 327 337
38. PalC
PappB
LercherMJ
2006 An integrated view of protein evolution. Nat Rev Genet 7 337 348
39. PlotkinJB
FraserHB
2007 Assessing the determinants of evolutionary rates in the presence of noise. Mol Biol Evol 24 1113 1121
40. KimSH
YiSV
2007 Understanding relationship between sequence and functional evolution in yeast proteins. Genetica 131 151 156
41. DrummondDA
BloomJD
AdamiC
WilkeCO
ArnoldFH
2005 Why highly expressed proteins evolve slowly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102 14338 14343
42. PennacchioLA
AhituvN
MosesAM
PrabhakarS
NobregaMA
2006 In vivo enhancer analysis of human conserved non-coding sequences. Nature 444 499 502
43. BoffelliD
McAuliffeJ
OvcharenkoD
LewisKD
OvcharenkoI
2003 Phylogenetic shadowing of primate sequences to find functional regions of the human genome. Science 299 1391 1394
44. XieX
LuJ
KulbokasEJ
GolubTR
MoothaV
2005 Systematic discovery of regulatory motifs in human promoters and 3′ UTRs by comparison of several mammals. Nature 434 338 345
45. KellisM
PattersonN
EndrizziM
BirrenB
LanderES
2003 Sequencing and comparison of yeast species to identify genes and regulatory elements. Nature 423 241 254
46. BeckerSA
FeistAM
MoML
HannumG
PalssonBO
2007 Quantitative prediction of cellular metabolism with constraint-based models: the COBRA Toolbox. Nat Protoc 2 727 738
47. WangZ
ZhangJ
2007 In search of the biological significance of modular structures in protein networks. PLoS Comput Biol 3 e107
Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicínaČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Genetics
2009 Číslo 1
- Je „freeze-all“ pro všechny? Odborníci na fertilitu diskutovali na virtuálním summitu
- Gynekologové a odborníci na reprodukční medicínu se sejdou na prvním virtuálním summitu
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- A -Acting Diversification Activator Both Necessary and Sufficient for AID-Mediated Hypermutation
- Order and Disorder during Divergence
- Mouse Genome-Wide Association Mapping Needs Linkage Analysis to Avoid False-Positive Loci
- Why Is the Correlation between Gene Importance and Gene Evolutionary Rate So Weak?