Significant Comparative Characteristics between Orphan and Nonorphan Genes in the Rice (<i>Oryza sativa L.</i>) Genome

Guo, Wen-Jiu; Li, Ping; Ling, Jun; Ye, Shao-Ping

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/21676

International Journal of Genomics

On this page

Abstract References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2007 | Article ID 021676 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/21676

Significant Comparative Characteristics between Orphan and Nonorphan Genes in the Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Genome

Wen-Jiu Guo,¹Ping Li,²Jun Ling,¹and Shao-Ping Ye²

Academic Editor: Stephen Oliver

Received25 Sept 2006

Accepted16 Apr 2007

Published17 Sept 2007

Abstract

Microsatellites are short tandem repeats of one to six bases in genomic DNA. As microsatellites are highly polymorphic and play a vital role in gene function and recombination, they are an attractive subject for research in evolution and in the genetics and breeding of animals and plants. Orphan genes have no known homologs in existing databases. Using bioinformatic computation and statistical analysis, we identified 19,26 orphan genes in the rice (Oryza sativa ssp. Japanica cv. Nipponbare) proteome. We found that a larger proportion of orphan genes are expressed after sexual maturation and under environmental pressure than nonorphan genes. Orphan genes generally have shorter protein lengths and intron size, and are faster evolving. Additionally, orphan genes have fewer PROSITE patterns with larger pattern sizes than those in nonorphan genes. The average microsatellite content and the percentage of trinucleotide repeats in orphan genes are also significantly higher than in nonorphan genes. Microsatellites are found less often in PROSITE patterns in orphan genes. Taken together, these orphan gene characteristics suggest that microsatellites play an important role in orphan gene evolution and expression.

References

Y.-C. Li, A. B. Korol, T. Fahima, A. Beiles, and E. Nevo, “Microsatellites: genomic distribution, putative functions and mutational mechanisms: a review,” Molecular Ecology, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2453–2465, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. V. Symonds and A. M. Lloyd, “An analysis of microsatellite loci in Arabidopsis thaliana: mutational dynamics and application,” Genetics, vol. 165, no. 3, pp. 1475–1488, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
A. C. Frantz, L. C. Pope, P. J. Carpenter et al., “Reliable microsatellite genotyping of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) using faecal DNA,” Molecular Ecology, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1649–1661, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Selvi, N. V. Nair, N. Balasundaram, and T. Mohapatra, “Evaluation of maize microsatellite markers for genetic diversity analysis and fingerprinting in sugarcane,” Genome, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 394–403, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Ruitberg, D. J. Reeder, and J. M. Butler, “STRBase: a short tandem repeat DNA database for the human identity testing community,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 320–322, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Huang, Q. Yang, C. Yu, and R. Yang, “Development of the X-linked tetrameric microsatellite markers HumDXS6803 and HumDXS9895 for forensic purpose,” Forensic Science International, vol. 133, no. 3, pp. 246–249, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Urquhart, C. P. Kimpton, T. J. Downes, and P. Gill, “Variation in short tandem repeat sequences—a survey of twelve microsatellite loci for use as forensic identification markers,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 13–20, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ellegren, “Microsatellites: simple sequences with complex evolution,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 435–445, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Nevo, “Evolution of genome-phenome diversity under environmental stress,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 6233–6240, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Field and C. Wills, “Abundant microsatellite polymorphism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the different distributions of microsatellites in eight prokaryotes and S. cerevisiae, result from strong mutation pressures and a variety of selective forces,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 1647–1652, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Domazet-Loso and D. Tautz, “An evolutionary analysis of orphan genes in Drosophila,” Genome Research, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2213–2219, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Long, E. Betrán, K. Thornton, and W. Wang, “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 865–875, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Yuan, S. Ouyang, J. Liu et al., “The TIGR rice genome annotation resource: annotating the rice genome and creating resources for plant biologists,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 229–233, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kikuchi, K. Satoh, T. Nagata et al., “Collection, mapping, and annotation of over 28,000 cDNA clones from Japonica rice,” Science, vol. 301, no. 5631, pp. 376–379, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bairoch, “PROSITE: a dictionary of sites and patterns in proteins,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 19, supplement, pp. 2241–2245, 1991.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Gattiker, E. Gasteiger, and A. Bairoch, “ScanProsite: a reference implementation of a PROSITE scanning tool,” Applied Bioinformatics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107–108, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Temnykh, G. DeClerck, A. Lukashova, L. Lipovich, S. Cartinhour, and S. McCouch, “Computational and experimental analysis of microsatellites in rice (Oryza sativa L.): frequency, length variation, transposon associations, and genetic marker potential,” Genome Research, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1441–1452, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Morgante, M. Hanafey, and W. Powell, “Microsatellites are preferentially associated with nonrepetitive DNA in plant genomes,” Nature Genetics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 194–200, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Toth, Z. Gaspari, and J. Jurka, “Microsatellites in different eukaryotic genomes: surveys and analysis,” Genome Research, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 967–981, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Stajich, D. Block, K. Boulez et al., “The Bioperl toolkit: Perl modules for the life sciences,” Genome Research, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1611–1618, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. F. Altschul, T. L. Madden, A. A. Schäffer et al., “Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 25, no. 17, pp. 3389–3402, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. F. Altschul, W. Gish, W. Miller, E. W. Myers, and D. J. Lipman, “Basic local alignment search tool,” Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 215, no. 3, pp. 403–410, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. M. Rubin, M. D. Yandell, J. R. Wortman et al., “Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes,” Science, vol. 287, no. 5461, pp. 2204–2215, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cruveiller, K. Jabbari, O. Clay, and G. Bernardi, “Incorrectly predicted genes in rice?” Gene, vol. 333, pp. 187–188, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Jabbari, S. Cruveiller, O. Clay, J. Le Saux, and G. Bernardi, “The new genes of rice: a closer look,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 281–285, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. S. Wyrwicz, M. von Grotthuss, J. Pas, L. Rychlewski, and S. Kikuchi, “How unique is the rice transcriptome?” Science, vol. 303, no. 5655, p. 168, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Carvalho and A. G. Clark, “Genetic recombination: intron size and natural selection,” Nature, vol. 401, no. 6751, p. 344, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Long, M. Deutsch, W. Wang, E. Betrán, F. G. Brunet, and J. Zhang, “Origin of new genes: evidence from experimental and computational analyses,” Genetica, vol. 118, no. 2-3, pp. 171–182, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Lipman, A. Souvorov, E. V. Koonin, A. R. Panchenko, and T. A. Tatusova, “The relationship of protein conservation and sequence length,” BMC Evolutionary Biology, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 20, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Chamas and E. L. Sabban, “Role of the $5^{'}$ untranslated region (UTR) in the tissue-specific regulation of rat tryptophan hydroxylase gene expression by stress,” Journal of Neurochemistry, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 645–654, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Amrani, R. Ganesan, S. Kervestin, D. A. Mangus, S. Ghosh, and A. Jacobson, “A faux $3^{'}$ -UTR promotes aberrant termination and triggers nonsense-mediated mRNA decay,” Nature, vol. 432, no. 7013, pp. 112–118, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-H. C. Cheng and L. Chen, “Evolution of an antifreeze glycoprotein,” Nature, vol. 401, no. 6752, pp. 443–444, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Kashi, D. King, and M. Soller, “Simple sequence repeats as a source of quantitative genetic variation,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 74–78, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Charlesworth, J. A. Coyne, and N. H. Barton, “The relative rates of evolution of sex chromosomes and autosomes,” American Naturalist, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 113–146, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2007 Wen-Jiu Guo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation Order printed copies

Views

668

Downloads

1438

Citations