Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Genomics
Volume 2015, Article ID 269127, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/269127
Research Article

Comparisons between Arabidopsis thaliana and Drosophila melanogaster in relation to Coding and Noncoding Sequence Length and Gene Expression

1School of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Keiraville, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
2National Institute for Applied Statistics Research Australia (NIASRA), School of Mathematics and Applied Statistics, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Keiraville, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia

Received 18 March 2015; Accepted 11 May 2015

Academic Editor: Sylvia Hagemann

Copyright © 2015 Rachel Caldwell 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.

Linked References

  1. L. T. C. França, E. Carrilho, and T. B. L. Kist, “A review of DNA sequencing techniques,” Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 169–200, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. E. Shapiro, T. Biezuner, and S. Linnarsson, “Single-cell sequencing-based technologies will revolutionize whole-organism science,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 618–630, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. S. J. Marygold, P. C. Leyland, R. L. Seal et al., “FlyBase: improvements to the bibliography,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. D751–D757, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. Y. Rhee, W. Beavis, T. Z. Berardini et al., “The Arabidopsis Information Resource (TAIR): a model organism database providing a centralized, curated gateway to Arabidopsis biology, research materials and community,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 224–228, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. A. Ball and J. M. Cherry, “Genome comparisons highlight similarity and diversity within the eukaryotic kingdoms,” Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 86–89, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. J. Kilian, D. Whitehead, J. Horak et al., “The AtGenExpress global stress expression data set: protocols, evaluation and model data analysis of UV-B light, drought and cold stress responses,” The Plant Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 347–363, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. C. L. Richards, U. Rosas, J. Banta, N. Bhambhra, and M. D. Purugganan, “Genome-wide patterns of Arabidopsis gene expression in nature,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 8, no. 4, Article ID e1002662, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. W. Robinson, P. Herzyk, J. A. T. Dow, and D. P. Leader, “FlyAtlas: database of gene expression in the tissues of Drosophila melanogaster,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. D744–D750, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. G. Sørensen, M. M. Nielsen, M. Kruhøffer, J. Justesen, and V. Loeschcke, “Full genome gene expression analysis of the heat stress response in Drosophila melanogaster,” Cell Stress and Chaperones, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 312–328, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. F. Murat, Y. Van De Peer, and J. Salse, “Decoding plant and animal genome plasticity from differential paleo-evolutionary patterns and processes,” Genome Biology and Evolution, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 917–928, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. E. Kejnovsky, I. J. Leitch, and A. R. Leitch, “Contrasting evolutionary dynamics between angiosperm and mammalian genomes,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 572–582, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. Warringer and A. Blomberg, “Evolutionary constraints on yeast protein size,” BMC Evolutionary Biology, vol. 6, article 61, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. Y. S. Rao, Z. F. Wang, X. W. Chai et al., “Selection for the compactness of highly expressed genes in Gallus gallus,” Biology Direct, vol. 5, article 35, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. S. Subramanian and S. Kumar, “Gene expression intensity shapes evolutionary rates of the proteins encoded by the vertebrate genome,” Genetics, vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 373–381, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. X.-Y. Ren, O. Vorst, M. W. E. J. Fiers, W. J. Stiekema, and J.-P. Nap, “In plants, highly expressed genes are the least compact,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 528–532, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. H. Yang, “In plants, expression breadth and expression level distinctly and non-linearly correlate with gene structure,” Biology Direct, vol. 4, article 45, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. R. Caldwell, J. Kongcharoen, Y.-X. Lin, and R. Zhang, “The length distributions of non-coding and coding sequences in relation to gene expression: a case study on Arabidopsis thaliana,” in Proceedings of the International Conference Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (BIOCOMOP '10), CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nev, USA, 2010.
  18. P. K. Ingvarsson, “Gene expression and protein length influence codon usage and rates of sequence evolution in Populus tremula,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 836–844, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. N. G. C. Smith and A. Eyre-Walker, “Adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila,” Nature, vol. 415, no. 6875, pp. 1022–1024, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. P. Andolfatto, “Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila,” Nature, vol. 437, no. 7062, pp. 1149–1152, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. Z. Lin and W.-H. Li, “Evolution of 5′ untranslated region length and gene expression reprogramming in yeasts,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 81–89, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. C. J. Grisdale and N. M. Fast, “Patterns of 5′ untranslated region length distribution in encephalitozoon cuniculi: implications for gene regulation and potential links between transcription and splicing,” Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 68–74, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. B. S. Cade and B. R. Noon, “A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 412–420, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. L. Huang, W. Zhu, C. P. Saunders et al., “A novel application of quantile regression for identification of biomarkers exemplified by equine cartilage microarray data,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 9, article 300, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. H. Wang and X. He, “An enhanced quantile approach for assessing differential gene expressions,” Biometrics, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 449–457, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  26. K. Hanada, M. Higuchi-Takeuchi, M. Okamoto et al., “Small open reading frames associated with morphogenesis are hidden in plant genomes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 2395–2400, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. G. Landis, J. Shen, and J. Tower, “Gene expression changes in response to aging compared to heat stress, oxidative stress and ionizing radiation in Drosophila melanogaster,” Aging, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 768–789, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. S. González-Pérez, J. Gutiérrez, F. García-García et al., “Early transcriptional defense responses in arabidopsis cell suspension culture under high-light conditions,” Plant Physiology, vol. 156, no. 3, pp. 1439–1456, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. D. Walther, R. Brunnemann, and J. Selbig, “The regulatory code for transcriptional response diversity and its relation to genome structural properties in A. thaliana,” PLOS Genetics, vol. 3, no. 2, e11, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  30. Y. Kim, G. Lee, E. Jeon et al., “The immediate upstream region of the 5′-UTR from the AUG start codon has a pronounced effect on the translational efficiency in Arabidopsis thaliana,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 485–498, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. R. Kawaguchi and J. Bailey-Serres, “mRNA sequence features that contribute to translational regulation in Arabidopsis,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 955–965, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. Lynch, The Origins of Genome Architecture, Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2007.
  33. L. Duret and D. Mouchiroud, “Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 4482–4487, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. N. Stoletzki, “The surprising negative correlation of gene length and optimal codon use—disentangling translational selection from GC-biased gene conversion in yeast,” BMC Evolutionary Biology, vol. 11, no. 1, article 93, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. L. Serres-Giardi, K. Belkhir, J. David, and S. Glémin, “Patterns and evolution of nucleotide landscapes in seed plants,” The Plant Cell, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1379–1397, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. G. P. S. Raghava and J. H. Han, “Correlation and prediction of gene expression level from amino acid and dipeptide composition of its protein,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 6, article 59, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. M. Algama, C. Oldmeadow, E. Tasker, K. Mengersen, and J. M. Keith, “Drosophila3 UTRs are more complex than protein-coding sequences,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 5, Article ID e97336, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. Boulesteix, M. Weiss, and C. Biémont, “Differences in genome size between closely related species: the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 162–167, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. C. A. Ball and J. M. Cherry, “Genome comparisons highlight similarity and diversity within the eukaryotic kingdoms,” Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 86–89, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. Arabidopsis Genome Initiative, “Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana,” Nature, vol. 408, no. 6814, pp. 796–815, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. A. M. Wilczek, J. L. Roe, M. C. Knapp et al., “Effects of genetic perturbation on seasonal life history plasticity,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5916, pp. 930–934, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. C. I. Castillo-Davis, S. L. Mekhedov, D. L. Hartl, E. V. Koonin, and F. A. Kondrashov, “Selection for short introns in highly expressed genes,” Nature Genetics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 415–418, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. E. Eisenberg and E. Y. Levanon, “Human housekeeping genes are compact,” Trends in Genetics, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 362–365, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. H. K. Stenøien, “Compact genes are highly expressed in the moss Physcomitrella patens,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1223–1229, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. E. Vilaprinyo, R. Alves, and A. Sorribas, “Minimization of biosynthetic costs in adaptive gene expression responses of yeast to environmental changes,” PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 6, no. 2, Article ID e1000674, 15 pages, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. L. W. Barrett, S. Fletcher, and S. D. Wilton, “Regulation of eukaryotic gene expression by the untranslated gene regions and other non-coding elements,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 69, no. 21, pp. 3613–3634, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. C.-H. Chen, H.-Y. Lin, C.-L. Pan, and F.-C. Chen, “The genomic features that affect the lengths of 5′ untranslated regions in multicellular eukaryotes,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 12, no. 9, article S3, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. C. Merritt, D. Rasoloson, D. Ko, and G. Seydoux, “3′ UTRs are the primary regulators of gene expression in the C. elegens germline,” Current Biology, vol. 18, no. 19, pp. 1476–1482, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. H. Liu, J. Yin, M. Xiao et al., “Characterization and evolution of 5 and 3 untranslated regions in eukaryotes,” Gene, vol. 507, no. 2, pp. 106–111, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. L. Li, D. Wang, M. Xue, X. Mi, Y. Liang, and P. Wang, “3′UTR shortening identifies high-risk cancers with targeted dysregulation of the ceRNA network,” Scientific Reports, vol. 4, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. P. Miura, S. Shenker, C. Andreu-Agullo, J. O. Westholm, and E. C. Lai, “Widespread and extensive lengthening of 3′ UTRs in the mammalian brain,” Genome Research, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 812–825, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus