CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Rate of protein evolution versus fitness effect of gene deletion. Export

Mol Biol Evol, Vol. 20, No. 5. (May 2003), pp. 772-774.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


bjorns's tags for this article

refs_jme05

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

Whether nonessential genes evolve faster than essential genes has been a controversial issue. To resolve this issue, we use the data from a nearly complete set of single-gene deletions in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to assess protein dispensability. Also, instead of the nematode, which was used previously but is only distantly related to S. cerevisiae, we use another yeast, Candida albicans, as a second species to estimate the evolutionary distances between orthologous genes in two species. Our analysis reveals only a weak correlation between protein dispensability and evolutionary rate. More important, the correlation disappears when duplicate genes are removed from the analysis. And surprisingly, the average rate of nonsynonymous substitution is considerably lower than that for single-copy genes in the yeast genome. This observation suggests that structural constraints are more important in determining the rate of evolution of a protein than dispensability because duplicate genes are on average more dispensable than single-copy genes. For duplicate genes, those with only a weak effect or no effect of deletion on fitness evolve on average faster than those with a moderate or strong effect of deletion on fitness, which in turn evolve on average faster than those with a lethal effect of deletion.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.