Advertisement

Neighboring genes are closely related to whole genome duplications after their separation

  • Shuaibin Lian
  • Tianliang Liu
  • Zaibao Zhang
  • Hongyu Yuan
  • Lei Wang
  • Lin ChengEmail author
Original Research article

Abstract

Background

The gene order in a eukaryotic genome is not random. Some neighboring genes show specific similarities, while others become separated during evolution. Whole genome duplication events (WGDs) have been recognized as an important evolutionary force. The potential relationship between the separation of neighboring genes and WGDs needs to be investigated. In this study, we investigated whether there is a potential relationship between separated neighboring gene pairs and WGDs, and the mechanism by which neighboring genes are separated. Additionally, we studied whether neighboring genes tend to show intrachromosomal colocalization after their neighborhood was disrupted and the factors facilitating the intrachromosomal colocalization of separated neighboring genes.

Results

The separation of neighboring gene pairs is closely related to whole genome duplication events. Furthermore, we found that there is a double linear relationship between separated neighboring genes, total genes, and WGDs. The process of separation of neighboring genes caused by WGDs is also not random but abides by the double linear model. Separated neighboring gene pairs tend to show intrachromosomal colocalization. The conservativism of separated neighboring genes and histone modification facilitate the intrachromosomal colocalization of neighboring genes after their separation.

Conclusions

These results provide new insight into the understanding of evolutionary roles of locations and the relationship of neighboring gene pairs with whole genome duplications. Furthermore, understanding the proposed mechanism for intrachromosomal colocalization of separated genes benefits our knowledge of chromosomal interactions in the nucleus.

Keywords

Gene order Neighboring genes Intrachromosomal colocalization Neighborhood conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors thank anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. The linguistic editing and proofreading provided by TopEdit LLC during the preparation of this manuscript are acknowledged.

Author contributions

SL and TL implemented the algorithms and carried out the experiments. SL and LC drafted the manuscript. SL, LW, and LC designed the study and analyzed the results. LC, LW, and HY participated in the analysis and discussion. SL and TL contributed equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant. 61501392, U1604112), Nanhu Scholars Program for Young Scholars of XYNU.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Semon M, Duret L (2006) Evolutionary origin and maintenance of coexpressed gene clusters in mammals. Mol Biol Evol 23(9):1715–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li YY, Yu H, Guo ZM, Guo TQ, Tu K, Li YX (2006) Systematic analysis of head-to-head gene organization: evolutionary conservation and potential biological relevance. PLoS Comput Biol 2(7):e74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hurst LD, Pal C, Lercher MJ (2004) The evolutionary dynamics of eukaryotic gene order. Nat Rev Genet 5(4):299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen BA, Mitra RD, Hughes JD, Church GM (2000) A computational analysis of whole-genome expression data reveals chromosomal domains of gene expression. Nat Genet 26:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spellman PT, Rubin GM (2002) Evidence for large domains of similarly expressed genes in the Drosophila genome. J Biol 1:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takai D, Jones PA (2004) Origins of bidirectional promoters: computational analyses of intergenic distance in the human genome. Mol Biol Evol 21(3):463–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trinklein ND, Aldred SF, Hartman SJ, Schroeder DI, Otillar RP, Myers RM (2004) An abundance of bidirectional promoters in the human genome. Genome Res 14(1):62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams EJ, Hurst LD (2002) Clustering of tissue-specific genes underlies much of the similarity in rates of protein evolution of linked genes. J Mol Evol 54:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thygesen HH, Zwinderman AH (2005) Modelling the correlation between the activities of adjacent genes in Drosophila. BMC Bioinform 6:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruglyak S, Tang H (2000) Regulation of adjacent yeast genes. Trends Genet 16(3):109–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams EJ, Bowles DJ (2004) Coexpression of neighboring genes in the genome of Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome Res 14(6):1060–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kensche PR, Oti M, Dutilh BE, Huynen MA (2008) Conservation of divergent transcription in fungi. Trends Genet 24:207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen WH, de Meaux J, Lercher MJ (2010) Co-expression of neighbouring genes in Arabidopsis: separating chromatin effects from direct interactions. BMC Genom 11:178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michalak P (2008) Coexpression, coregulation, and cofunctionality of neighboring genes in eukaryotic genomes. Genomics 91:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghanbarian AT, Hurst LD (2015) Neighboring genes show correlated evolution in gene expression. Mol Biol Evol 32(7):1748–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lercher MJ, Hurst LD (2006) Co-expressed yeast genes cluster over a long range but are not regularly spaced. J Mol Biol 359(3):825–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liao BY, Zhang J (2008) Coexpression of linked genes in Mammalian genomes is generally disadvantageous. Mol Biol Evol 25:1555–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber CC, Hurst LD (2011) Support for multiple classes of local expression clusters in Drosophila melanogaster, but no evidence for gene order conservation. Genome Biol 12:R23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ren R, Wang H, Guo C, Zhang N, Zeng L, Chen Y, Ma H, Qi J (2018) Widespread whole genome duplications contribute to genome complexity and species diversity in angiosperms. Mol Plant 11:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yuannian J, Li J, Tang H, Patersona AH (2014) Integrated syntenic and phylogenomic analyses reveal an ancient genome duplication in monocots. Plant Cell 26:2792–2802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amborella Genome Project (2013) The Amborella genome and the evolution of flowering plants. Science 342:1241089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soltis DE, Bell CD, Kim S, Soltis PS (2008) Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Ann NY Acad Sci 1133:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cui L et al (2006) Widespread genome duplications throughout the history of flowering plants. Genome Res 16:738–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jiao Y, Wickett NJ, Ayyampalayam S, Chanderbali AS, Landherr L, Ralph PE, Tomsho LP, Hu Y, Liang H, Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Clifton SW, Schlarbaum SE, Schuster SC, Ma H, Leebens-Mack J, dePamphilis CW (2011) Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms. Nature 473:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lynch M, Conery JS (2003) The evolutionary demography of duplicate genes. J Struct Funct Genom 3:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dehal P, Boore JL (2005) Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate. PLoS Biol 3:e314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakatani Y, Takeda H, Kohara Y, Morishita S (2007) Reconstruction of the vertebrate ancestral genome reveals dynamic genome reorganization in early vertebrates. Genome Res 17:1254–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dixon JR, Selvaraj S, Yue F, Kim A, Li Y, Shen Y, Hu M, Liu JS, Ren B (2012) Topological domains in mammalian genomes identified by analysis of chromatin interactions. Nature 485:376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jin F, Li Y, Dixon JR, Selvaraj S, Ye Z, Lee AY, Yen CA, Schmitt AD, Espinoza CA, Ren B (2013) A high-resolution map of the three dimensional chromatin interactome in human cells. Nature 503:290–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grob S, Schmid MW, Luedtke NW, Wicker T, Grossniklaus U (2013) Characterization of chromosomal architecture in Arabidopsis by chromosome conformation capture. Genome Biol 14:R129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lieberman-Aiden E, van Berkum NL, Williams L, Imakaev M, Ragoczy T, Telling A, Amit I, Lajoie BR, Sabo PJ, Dorschner MO et al (2009) Comprehensive mapping of long-range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome. Science 326:289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Szczepin´ska T, Pawlowski K (2013) Genomic positions of co-expressed genes: echoes of chromosome organisation in gene expression data. BMC Res Notes 6:229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Homouz D, Kudlicki AS (2013) The 3D organization of the yeast genome correlates with co-expression and reflects functional relations between genes. PLoS One 8:e54699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dai Z, Xiong Y, Dai X (2014) Neighboring genes show interchromosomal colocalization after their separation. Mol Biol Evol 31(5):1166–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xie T, Yang Q-Y, Wang X-T, McLysaght A, Zhang HY (2016) Spatial colocalization of human ohnolog pairs acts to maintain dosage-balance. Mol Biol Evol 33(9):2368–2375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Takashi Makino and Aoife McLysaght (2010) Ohnologs in the human genome are dosage balanced and frequently associated with disease. PNAS 107(20):9270–9274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zeng L, Zhang Q, Sun R, Kong H, Zhang N, Hong Ma (2014) Resolution of deep angiosperm phylogeny using conserved nuclear genes and estimates of early divergence times. Nat Commun 5:4956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee TH, Tang H, Wang X, Paterson AH (2013) PGDD: a database of gene and genome duplication in plants. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D1152–D1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang C, Liu C, Roqueiro D, Grimm D, Schwab R, Becker C, Lanz C, Detlef Weigel (2015) Genome-wide analysis of local chromatin packing in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome Res 25(2):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang C, Liu C, Roqueiro D, Grimm D, Schwab R, Becker C, Lanz C, Weigel D (2015) Genome-wide analysis of local chromatin packing in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genome Res 25(2):246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tian Tian Y, Liu H, You YQ, Yi X, Du Z, Xu W, Zhen S (2017) agriGO v2.0: a GO analysis toolkit for the agricultural community. Nucleic Acids Res.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx382 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gabriel O, Schmitt T, Forslund K, Köstler T, Messina DN, Roopra S, Frings O, Sonnhammer ELL (2010) InParanoid 7: new algorithms and tools for eukaryotic orthology analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 38:D196–D203Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Scientists in the Interdisciplinary Areas 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Physics and Electronic EngineeringXinyang Normal UniversityXinyangChina
  2. 2.College of Life SciencesXinyang Normal UniversityXinyangChina

Personalised recommendations