ArticleBiology direct2010
Selection for the compactness of highly expressed genes in Gallus gallus.
Article in Biology direct, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicochemical Foundations of Life that Direct Evolution: Chance and Natural Selection are not Evolutionary Driving Forces.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- The organelle of differentiation in embryos: the cell state splitter.Theoretical biology & medical modelling · 2016Review
- Comparisons between Arabidopsis thaliana and Drosophila melanogaster in relation to Coding and Noncoding Sequence Length and Gene Expression.International journal of genomics · 2015Article
- Length and GC content variability of introns among teleostean genomes in the light of the metabolic rate hypothesis.PloS one · 2014Article
- Hydrophobicity and aromaticity are primary factors shaping variation in amino acid usage of chicken proteome.PloS one · 2014Article
- Article
- Translational signatures and mRNA levels are highly correlated in human stably expressed genes.BMC genomics · 2013Article
- Three independent determinants of protein evolutionary rate.Journal of molecular evolution · 2013Review
- Weak 5'-mRNA secondary structures in short eukaryotic genes.Genome biology and evolution · 2012Article
- Mutation bias is the driving force of codon usage in the Gallus gallus genome.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2011Article
- Why eukaryotic cells use introns to enhance gene expression: splicing reduces transcription-associated mutagenesis by inhibiting topoisomerase I cutting activity.Biology direct · 2011Article
- Gene expression: sizing it all up.Frontiers in genetics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoding sequence (CDS) length, gene size, and intron length vary within a genome and among genomes. Previous studies in diverse organisms, including human, D. Melanogaster, C. elegans, S. cerevisiae, and Arabidopsis thaliana, indicated that there are negative relationships between expression level and gene size, CDS length as well as intron length. Different models such as selection for economy model, genomic design model, and mutational bias hypotheses have been proposed to explain such observation. The debate of which model is a superior one to explain the observation has not been settled down. The chicken (Gallus gallus) is an important model organism that bridges the evolutionary gap between mammals and other vertebrates. As D. Melanogaster, chicken has a larger effective population size, selection for chicken genome is expected to be more effective in increasing protein synthesis efficiency. Therefore, in this study the chicken was used as a model organism to elucidate the interaction between gene features and expression pattern upon selection pressure.
resultsBased on different technologies, we gathered expression data for nuclear protein coding, single-splicing genes from Gallus gallus genome and compared them with gene parameters. We found that gene size, CDS length, first intron length, average intron length, and total intron length are negatively correlated with expression level and expression breadth significantly. The tissue specificity is positively correlated with the first intron length but negatively correlated with the average intron length, and not correlated with the CDS length and protein domain numbers. Comparison analyses showed that ubiquitously expressed genes and narrowly expressed genes with the similar expression levels do not differ in compactness. Our data provided evidence that the genomic design model can not, at least in part, explain our observations. We grouped all somatic-tissue-specific genes (n = 1105), and compared the first intron length and the average intron length between highly expressed genes (top 5% expressed genes) and weakly expressed genes (bottom 5% expressed genes). We found that the first intron length and the average intron length in highly expressed genes are not different from that in weakly expressed genes. We also made a comparison between ubiquitously expressed genes and narrowly expressed somatic genes with similar expression levels. Our data demonstrated that ubiquitously expressed genes are less compact than narrowly expressed genes with the similar expression levels. Obviously, these observations can not be explained by mutational bias hypotheses either. We also found that the significant trend between genes' compactness and expression level could not be affected by local mutational biases. We argued that the selection of economy model is most likely one to explain the relationship between gene expression and gene characteristics in chicken genome.
conclusionNatural selection appears to favor the compactness of highly expressed genes in chicken genome. This observation can be explained by the selection of economy model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.