↓ Skip to main content

Selection for Antimicrobial Peptide Diversity in Frogs Leads to Gene Duplication and Low Allelic Variation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selection for Antimicrobial Peptide Diversity in Frogs Leads to Gene Duplication and Low Allelic Variation
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, October 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00239-007-9045-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob A. Tennessen, Michael S. Blouin

Abstract

Antimicrobial peptides are highly diverse pathogen-killing molecules. In many taxa, their evolution is characterized by positive selection and frequent gene duplication. It has been proposed that genes encoding antimicrobial peptides might be subject to balancing selection and/or an enhanced mutation rate, but these hypotheses have not been well evaluated because allelic variation has rarely been studied at antimicrobial peptide loci. We present an evolutionary analysis of novel antimicrobial peptide genes from leopard frogs, Rana. Our results demonstrate that a single genome contains multiple homologous copies, among which there is an excess of nonsynonymous nucleotide site divergence relative to that expected from synonymous site divergence. Thus, we confirm the trends of recurrent duplication and positive selection. Allelic variation is quite low relative to interspecies divergence, indicating a recent positive selective sweep with no evidence of balancing selection. Repeated gene duplication, rather than a balanced maintenance of divergent allelic variants at individual loci, appears to be how frogs have responded to selection for a diverse suite of antimicrobial peptides. Our data also support a pattern of enhanced synonymous site substitution in the mature peptide region of the gene, but we cannot conclude that this is due to an elevated mutation rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Finland 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 61 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 17%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 12 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 September 2013.
All research outputs
#18,345,822
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#1,264
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,139
of 72,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 72,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.