| Title |
Purifying selection acts on coding and non-coding sequences of paralogous genes in Arabidopsis thaliana
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12864-016-2803-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert D. Hoffmann, Michael Palmgren |
| Abstract |
Whole-genome duplications in the ancestors of many diverse species provided the genetic material for evolutionary novelty. Several models explain the retention of paralogous genes. However, how these models are reflected in the evolution of coding and non-coding sequences of paralogous genes is unknown. Here, we analyzed the coding and non-coding sequences of paralogous genes in Arabidopsis thaliana and compared these sequences with those of orthologous genes in Arabidopsis lyrata. Paralogs with lower expression than their duplicate had more nonsynonymous substitutions, were more likely to fractionate, and exhibited less similar expression patterns with their orthologs in the other species. Also, lower-expressed genes had greater tissue specificity. Orthologous conserved non-coding sequences in the promoters, introns, and 3' untranslated regions were less abundant at lower-expressed genes compared to their higher-expressed paralogs. A gene ontology (GO) term enrichment analysis showed that paralogs with similar expression levels were enriched in GO terms related to ribosomes, whereas paralogs with different expression levels were enriched in terms associated with stress responses. Loss of conserved non-coding sequences in one gene of a paralogous gene pair correlates with reduced expression levels that are more tissue specific. Together with increased mutation rates in the coding sequences, this suggests that similar forces of purifying selection act on coding and non-coding sequences. We propose that coding and non-coding sequences evolve concurrently following gene duplication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Professor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2019.
All research outputs
#15,377,977
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,702
of 10,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,574
of 352,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#125
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,665 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.