Splitting pairs: the diverging fates of duplicated genes - Nature Reviews Genetics
- ️Pickett, F. Bryan
- ️Fri Nov 01 2002
Lynch, M. & Conery, J. S. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290, 1151–1155 (2000).This paper analyses divergence rates between duplicated genes from six eukaryotic genomes and argues that duplications might be important in speciation.
Song, K., Lu, P., Tang, K. & Osborn, T. C. Rapid genome change in synthetic polyploids of Brassica and its implications for polyploid evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 92, 7719–7723 (1995).
Hughes, M. K. & Hughes, A. L. Evolution of duplicate genes in a tetraploid animal, Xenopus laevis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 1360–1369 (1993).
Sidow, A. Gen(om)e duplications in the evolution of early vertebrates. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 6, 715–722 (1996).
Meyer, A. & Schartl, M. Gene and genome duplications in vertbrates: the one-to-four (-to-eight in fish) rule and the evolution of novel gene functions. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 11, 699–704 (1999).
Wolfe, K. H. Yesterday's polyploids and the mystery of diploidization. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 333–341 (2001).
Postlethwait, J. H. et al. Zebrafish comparative genomics and the origins of vertebrate chromosomes. Genome Res. 10, 1890–1902 (2000).
Tautz, D. Redundancies, development and the flow of information. Bioessays 14, 263–266 (1992).
Pickett, F. B. & Meeks-Wagner, D. R. Seeing double, appreciating genetic redundancy. Plant Cell 7, 1347–1356 (1995).
Thomas, J. H. Thinking about genetic redundancy. Trends Genet. 9, 395–399 (1993).
Fisher, R. A. The sheltering of lethals. Am. Nat. 69, 446–455 (1935).
Haldane, J. B. S. The part played by recurrent mutation in evolution. Am. Nat. 67, 5–9 (1933).
Nadeau, J. H. & Sankoff, D. Comparable rates of gene loss and functional divergence after genome duplications early in vertebrate evolution. Genetics 147, 1259–1266 (1997).
Li, W. H., Gu, Z., Wang, H. & Nakrutenko, A. Evolutionary analyses of the human genome. Nature 409, 847–849 (2001).
Bailey, J. A. et al. Recent segmental duplications in the human genome. Science 297, 1003–1007 (2002).
The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative. Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 408, 796–815 (2000).
Force, A. et al. Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics 151, 1531–1545 (1999).The original description of the DDC sub-functionalization model is reported here.
Lynch, M. & Force, A. The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization. Genetics 154, 459–473 (2000).
Edelman, G. M., Meech, R., Owens, G. C. & Jones, F. S. Synthetic promoter elements obtained by nucleotide sequence variation and selection for activity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 3038–3043 (1999).
Yuh, C. H., Bolouri, H. & Davidson, E. H. Cis-regulatory logic in the endo16 gene: switching from a specification to a differentiation mode of control. Development 128, 617–629 (2001).
Carroll, S. B. Endless forms: the evolution of gene regulation and morphological diversity. Cell 101, 577–580 (2000).
Force, A., Cresko, W. F. & Pickett, F. B. in Modularity in Development and Evolution (eds Schlosser, G. & Wagner, G.) (Univ. of Chicago Press, Illinois, in the press).
Piatigorsky, J. & Wistow, G. The recruitment of crystallins: new functions precede gene duplication. Science 252, 1078–1079 (1991).
Hughes, A. L. The evolution of functionally novel proteins after gene duplication. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 256, 119–124 (1994).
Averof, M., Dawes, R. & Ferrier, D. Diversification of arthropod Hox genes as a paradigm for the evolution of gene functions. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 7, 539–551 (1996).
Stoltzfus, A. On the possibility of constructive neutral evolution. J. Mol. Evol. 49, 169–181 (1999).
Lynch, M., O'Hely, M., Walsh, B. & Force, A. The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplicate. Genetics 159, 1789–1804 (2001).
Castillo-Davis, C. I. & Hartl, D. L. Genome evolution and developmental constraint in Caenorhabditis elegans. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 728–735 (2002).
Seoighe, C. & Wolfe, K. H. Updated map of duplicated regions in the yeast genome. Genes Dev. 238, 253–261 (1999).
McGinnis, W. & Krumlauf, R. Homeobox genes and axial patterning. Cell 68, 283–302 (1992).
De Rosa, R. et al. Hox genes in brachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution. Nature 399, 772–776 (1999).
Holland, P. W., Garcia-Fernandez, J., Williams, N. A. & Sidow, A. Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development. Development (Suppl.), 125–133 (1994).
Amores, A. et al. Genome duplications in vertebrate evolution: evidence from zebrafish Hox clusters. Science 282, 1711–1714 (1998).This study analysed the complete organization of the zebrafish Hox clusters, providing strong evidence for the occurrence of a whole-genome duplication event during teleost evolution.
Manley, N. R. & Capecchi, M. R. The role of Hoxa-3 in mouse thymus and thyroid development. Development 121, 1989–2003 (1995).
Chisaka, O. & Capecchi, M. R. Regionally restricted developmental defects resulting from targeted disruption of the mouse homeobox gene hox-1.5. Nature 350, 473–479 (1991).
Condie, B. G. & Capecchi, M. R. Mice homozygous for a targeted disruption of Hoxd-3 (Hox-4.1) exhibit anterior transformations of the first and second cervical vertebrae, the atlas and the axis. Development 119, 579–595 (1993).
Condie, B. G. & Capecchi, M. R. Mice with targeted disruptions in the paralogous genes hoxa-3 and hoxd-3 reveal synergistic interactions. Nature 370, 304–307 (1994).
Greer, J. M., Puetz, J., Thomas, K. R. & Capecchi, M. R. Maintenance of functional equivalence during paralogous Hox gene evolution. Nature 403, 661–665 (2000).An elegant mouse genetics approach to investigating functional redundancy in Hox genes.
Bruce, A., Oates, A., Prince, V. E. & Ho, R. K. Additional hox clusters in the zebrafish: divergent expression belies conserved activities of duplicate hoxB5 genes. Evol. Dev. 3, 127–144 (2001).
McClintock, J. M., Kheirbek, M. A. & Prince, V. E. Knock-down of duplicated zebrafish hoxb1 genes reveals distinct roles in hindbrain patterning and a novel mechanism of duplicate gene retention. Development 129, 2339–2354 (2002).Describes the sub-functionalization of a pair of duplicated zebrafish Hox genes. This study is unique in including the analysis of not only duplicate gene expression and function, but also duplicate regulatory sequences.
McClintock, J. M., Carlson, R., Mann, D. M. & Prince, V. E. Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes. Development 128, 2471–2484 (2001).
Studer, M., Lumsden, A., Ariza-McNaughton, L., Bradley, A. & Krumlauf, R. Altered segmental identity and abnormal migration of motor neurons in mice lacking Hoxb1. Nature 384, 630–634 (1996).
Goddard, J. M., Rossel, M., Manley, N. R. & Capecchi, M. R. Mice with targeted disruption of Hoxb1 fail to form the motor nucleus of the V11th nerve. Development 122, 3217–3228 (1996).
Gaufo, G. O., Flodby, P. & Capecchi, M. R. Hoxb1 controls effectors of sonic hedgehog and Mash1 signaling pathways. Development 127, 5343–5354 (2000).
Lufkin, T., Dierich, A., LeMeur, M., Mark, M. & Chambon, P. Disruption of the Hox-1.6 homeobox gene results in defects in a region corresponding to its rostral domain of expression. Cell 66, 1105–1119 (1991).
Carpenter, E. M., Goddard, J. M., Chisaka, O., Manley, N. R. & Capecchi, M. R. Loss of Hox-A1 (Hox-1.6) function results in the reorganization of the murine hindbrain. Development 118, 1063–1075 (1993).
Mark, M. et al. Two rhombomeres are altered in Hoxa1 mutant mice. Development 119, 319–338 (1993).
Postlethwait, J. H. et al. Vertebrate genome evolution and the zebrafish gene map. Nature Genet. 18, 345–349 (1998).
Taylor, J. S., Van de Peer, Y., Braasch, I. & Meyer, A. Comparative genomics provides evidence for an ancient genome duplication event in fish. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 356, 1661–1679 (2001).
Sakamoto, T. et al. A microsatellite linkage map of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) characterized by large sex-specific differences in recombination rates. Genetics 15, 1331–1345 (2000).
Tassabehji, M., Newton, V. E. & Read, A. P. Waardenburg syndrome type 2 caused by mutations in the human microphthalmia (MITF) gene. Nature Genet. 8, 251–255 (1994).
Smith, S. D., Kelley, P. M., Kenyon, J. B. & Hoover, D. Tietz syndrome (hypopigmentation/deafness) caused by mutation of MITF. J. Med. Genet. 37, 446–448 (2000).
Hodgkinson, C. A. et al. Mutations at the mouse microphthalmia locus are associated with defects in a gene encoding a novel basic helix–loop–helix zipper protein. Cell 74, 395–404 (1993).
Lister, J. A., Close, J. & Raible, D. W. Duplicate mitf genes in zebrafish: complementary expression and conservation of melanogenic potential. Dev. Biol. 237, 333–344 (2001).Shows that the zebrafish mitfa and mitfb duplicate genes are homologous to distinct isoforms of the mammalian Mitf gene.
Altschmied, J. et al. Subfunctionalization of duplicate mitf genes associated with differential degeneration of alternative exons in fish. Genetics 161, 259–267 (2002).
Talbot, W. S. & Hopkins, N. Zebrafish mutations and functional analysis of the vertebrate genome. Genes Dev. 14, 755–762 (2000).
Sampath, K. et al. Induction of the zebrafish ventral brain and floorplate requires cyclops/nodal signalling. Nature 395, 185–189 (1998).
Feldman, B. et al. Zebrafish organizer development and germ-layer formation require nodal-related signals. Nature 395, 181–185 (1998).
Yan, Y.-L. et al. A zebrafish sox9 gene is required for cartilage morphogenesis. Development (in the press).
Gaut, B. S. & Doebley, J. F. DNA sequence evidence for the segmental allotetraploid origin of maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 6809–6814 (1997).
Gaut, B. S. Patterns of chromosomal duplication in maize and their implications for comparative maps of the grasses. Genome Res. 11, 55–66 (2001).
Vision, T. J., Brown, D. G. & Tanksley, S. D. The origins of genomic duplications in Arabidopsis. Science 290, 2114–2116 (2000).
Blanc, G., Barakat, A., Guyot, R., Cooke, R. & Delseny, M. Extensive duplication and reshuffling in the Arabidopsis genome. Plant Cell 12, 1093–1101 (2000).
Ferrandiz, C., Gu, Q., Martienssen, R. & Yanofsky, M. F. Redundant regulation of meristem identity and plant architecture by FRUITFULL, APETALA1, and CAULIFLOWER. Development 127, 725–734 (2000).This report describes the phenotypes of triple mutants of the Arabidopsis genes AP1, CAL and FUL and their partially redundant functions in a gene network.
Purugganan, M. D., Rounsley, S. D., Schmidt, R. J. & Yanofsky, M. F. Molecular evolution of flower development: diversification of the plant MADS-box regulatory gene family. Genetics 140, 345–356 (1995).
Achaz, G., Netter, P. & Coissac, E. Study of intrachromosomal duplications among the eukaryote genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 2280–2288 (2001).
Irish, V. F. & Sussex, I. M. Function of the apetala-1 gene during Arabidopsis floral development. Plant Cell 2, 741–753 (1990).
Bowman, J. L., Alvarez, J., Weigel, D., Meyerowitz, E. M. & Smyth, D. R. Control of flower development in Arabidopsis thaliana by APETALA1 and interacting genes. Development 119, 721–743 (1993).
Mandel, M. A. & Yanofsky, M. F. The Arabidopsis AGL8 MADS box gene is expressed in inflorescence meristems and is negatively regulated by APETALA1. Plant Cell 7, 1763–1771 (1995).
Purugganan, M. D. & Suddith, J. I. Molecular population genetics of the Arabidopsis CAULIFLOWER regulatory gene: nonneutral evolution and naturally occurring variation in floral homeotic function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 9, 8130–8134 (1998).Describes sequence comparisons of MADS-box genes from ecotypes of Arabidopisis to reveal that CAL is a surprisingly polymorphic gene.
Olsen, K. M., Womack, A., Garrett, A. R., Suddith, J. I. & Purugganan, M. D. Contrasting evolutionary forces in the Arabidopsis thaliana floral developmental pathway. Genetics 160, 1641–1650 (2002).
McDonald, J. H. & Kreitman, M. Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351, 652–654 (1991).
Chiu, C.-H. et al. Molecular evolution of the HoxA cluster in the three major gnathostome lineages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 5492–5497 (2002).
Schwartz, S. et al. PipMaker — A web server for aligning two genomic DNA sequences. Genome Res. 10, 577–586 (2000).
Scemama, J.-L., Hunter, M., McCallum, J., Prince, V. & Stellwag, E. Evolutionary divergence of teleost Hoxb2 expression patterns and transcriptional regulatory loci. J. Exp. Zool. 294, 285–299.
Ludwig, M. Z., Bergman, C., Patel, N. H. & Kreitman, M. Evidence for stabilizing selection in a eukaryotic enhancer element. Nature 403, 564–567 (2000).
Zhang, Q., Arbuckle, J. & Wessler, S. R. Recent, extensive, and preferential insertion of members of the miniature inverted-repeat transposable element family Heartbreaker into genic regions of maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 1160–1165 (2000).
Gu, X. Statistical methods for testing functional divergence after gene duplication. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 1664–1674 (1999).
Dermitzakis, E. T. & Clark, A. G. Differential selection after duplication in mammalian developmental genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18, 557–562 (2001).
Nei, M. & Kumar, S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2000).
Kumar, S., Tamura, K., Jakobsen, I. B. & Nei, M. MEGA2: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software. Bioinformatics 17, 1244–1245 (2001).
Shuai, B., Reynaga-Pena, C. G. & Springer, P. S. The lateral organ boundaries gene defines a novel, plant-specific gene family. Plant Physiol. 129, 747–761 (2002).
Shiu, S. H. & Bleecker, A. B. Receptor-like kinases from Arabidopsis form a monophyletic gene family related to animal receptor kinases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10763–10768 (2001).
Lynch, M. & Force, A. Gene duplication and the origin of interspecific genomic incompatibility. Am. Nat. 156, 590–605 (2000).
Mezey, J. G., Cheverud, J. M. & Wagner, G. P. Is the genotype–phenotype map modular? A statistical approach using mouse quantitative trait loci data. Genetics 156, 305–311 (2000).
Emerson, R. A. Genetic correlation and spurious allelomorphism in maize. Nebraska Agric. Exp. Stat. Annu. Rep. 24, 59–90 (1911).
Muller, H. J. Further studies on the nature and causes of gene mutations. Proc. Sixth Int. Congr. Genet. 1, 213–255 (1932).
Serebrovsky, A. S. & Dubinin, N. P. Artificial production of mutations and the problem of the gene. Uspeki Eksperimental noi Biologii 8, 235–247 (1929).
Raffel, D. & Muller, H. J. Position effect and gene divisibility considered in connection with three strikingly similar scute mutations. Genetics 25, 541–583 (1940).
Verderosa, F. J. & Muller, H. J. Another case of dissimilar characters in Drosophila apparently representing changes of the same locus. Genetics 39, 999 (1954).
Prince, V. E. The Hox paradox: more complex(es) than imagined. Dev. Biol. 249, 1–15 (2002).
Studer, M. et al. Genetic interactions between Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 reveal new roles in regulation of early hindbrain patterning. Development 125, 1025–1036 (1998).
Pöpperl, H. et al. Segmental expression of Hoxb1 is controlled by a highly conserved autoregulatory loop dependent upon exd/pbx. Cell 81, 1031–1042 (1995).
Dupe, V. et al. In vivo functional analysis of the Hoxa-1 3′ retinoic acid response element (3′RARE). Development 124, 399–410 (1997).
Langston, A. W., Thompson, J. R. & Gudas, L. J. Retinoic acid-responsive enhancers located 3′ of the Hox A and Hox B homeobox gene clusters. Functional analysis. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 2167–2175 (1997).
Shih, L., Tsay, H., Lin, S. & Hwang, S. L. Expression of zebrafish Hoxa1a in neuronal cells of the midbrain and anterior hindbrain. Mech. Dev. 101, 279–281 (2001).
Kolm, P. J. & Sive, H. L. Regulation of the Xenopus labial homeodomain genes, HoxA1 and HoxD1: activation by retinoids and peptide growth factors. Dev. Biol. 167, 34–49 (1995).
Scholpp, S. & Brand, M. Morpholino-induced knockdown of zebrafish engrailed genes eng2 and eng3 reveals redundant and unique functions in midbrain–hindbrain boundary development. Genesis 30, 129–133 (2001).