Gene expression of functionally-related genes coevolves across fungal species: detecting coevolution of gene expression using phylogenetic comparative methods.
Coevolution
Gene expression
Phylogenetic comparative methods
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 May 2020
20 May 2020
Historique:
received:
09
01
2020
accepted:
29
04
2020
entrez:
22
5
2020
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
12
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Researchers often measure changes in gene expression across conditions to better understand the shared functional roles and regulatory mechanisms of different genes. Analogous to this is comparing gene expression across species, which can improve our understanding of the evolutionary processes shaping the evolution of both individual genes and functional pathways. One area of interest is determining genes showing signals of coevolution, which can also indicate potential functional similarity, analogous to co-expression analysis often performed across conditions for a single species. However, as with any trait, comparing gene expression across species can be confounded by the non-independence of species due to shared ancestry, making standard hypothesis testing inappropriate. We compared RNA-Seq data across 18 fungal species using a multivariate Brownian Motion phylogenetic comparative method (PCM), which allowed us to quantify coevolution between protein pairs while directly accounting for the shared ancestry of the species. Our work indicates proteins which physically-interact show stronger signals of coevolution than randomly-generated pairs. Interactions with stronger empirical and computational evidence also showing stronger signals of coevolution. We examined the effects of number of protein interactions and gene expression levels on coevolution, finding both factors are overall poor predictors of the strength of coevolution between a protein pair. Simulations further demonstrate the potential issues of analyzing gene expression coevolution without accounting for shared ancestry in a standard hypothesis testing framework. Furthermore, our simulations indicate the use of a randomly-generated null distribution as a means of determining statistical significance for detecting coevolving genes with phylogenetically-uncorrected correlations, as has previously been done, is less accurate than PCMs, although is a significant improvement over standard hypothesis testing. These methods are further improved by using a phylogenetically-corrected correlation metric. Our work highlights potential benefits of using PCMs to detect gene expression coevolution from high-throughput omics scale data. This framework can be built upon to investigate other evolutionary hypotheses, such as changes in transcription regulatory mechanisms across species.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Researchers often measure changes in gene expression across conditions to better understand the shared functional roles and regulatory mechanisms of different genes. Analogous to this is comparing gene expression across species, which can improve our understanding of the evolutionary processes shaping the evolution of both individual genes and functional pathways. One area of interest is determining genes showing signals of coevolution, which can also indicate potential functional similarity, analogous to co-expression analysis often performed across conditions for a single species. However, as with any trait, comparing gene expression across species can be confounded by the non-independence of species due to shared ancestry, making standard hypothesis testing inappropriate.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We compared RNA-Seq data across 18 fungal species using a multivariate Brownian Motion phylogenetic comparative method (PCM), which allowed us to quantify coevolution between protein pairs while directly accounting for the shared ancestry of the species. Our work indicates proteins which physically-interact show stronger signals of coevolution than randomly-generated pairs. Interactions with stronger empirical and computational evidence also showing stronger signals of coevolution. We examined the effects of number of protein interactions and gene expression levels on coevolution, finding both factors are overall poor predictors of the strength of coevolution between a protein pair. Simulations further demonstrate the potential issues of analyzing gene expression coevolution without accounting for shared ancestry in a standard hypothesis testing framework. Furthermore, our simulations indicate the use of a randomly-generated null distribution as a means of determining statistical significance for detecting coevolving genes with phylogenetically-uncorrected correlations, as has previously been done, is less accurate than PCMs, although is a significant improvement over standard hypothesis testing. These methods are further improved by using a phylogenetically-corrected correlation metric.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our work highlights potential benefits of using PCMs to detect gene expression coevolution from high-throughput omics scale data. This framework can be built upon to investigate other evolutionary hypotheses, such as changes in transcription regulatory mechanisms across species.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32434474
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-6761-3
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-6761-3
pmc: PMC7240986
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fungal Proteins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
370Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 21;108(25):10231-6
pubmed: 21646514
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D745-D751
pubmed: 30407521
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 18;6(2):e17258
pubmed: 21364756
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):526-528
pubmed: 30016406
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Nov 09;12:436
pubmed: 22070249
Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Dec 1;31(23):6976-85
pubmed: 14627830
Genome Biol Evol. 2015 May 14;7(6):1559-79
pubmed: 25977456
PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Jun;1(1):e3
pubmed: 16103904
Evolution. 2009 Apr;63(4):1090-100
pubmed: 19154380
Nat Rev Genet. 2015 Jul;16(7):409-20
pubmed: 26055156
Nat Methods. 2017 Apr;14(4):417-419
pubmed: 28263959
Genomics. 2008 Mar;91(3):243-8
pubmed: 18082363
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Jun;30(6):1438-53
pubmed: 23493257
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jan;42(Database issue):D705-10
pubmed: 24194595
Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Mar;10(3):195-205
pubmed: 19204717
J Fungi (Basel). 2018 Mar 20;4(1):
pubmed: 30152809
Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Sep 1;29(17):3513-9
pubmed: 11522820
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jan;42(Database issue):D26-31
pubmed: 24225321
J Theor Biol. 2012 Dec 7;314:204-15
pubmed: 22940235
Evolution. 2006 May;60(5):922-33
pubmed: 16817533
Nucleic Acids Res. 1987 Feb 11;15(3):1281-95
pubmed: 3547335
Theory Biosci. 2012 Dec;131(4):281-5
pubmed: 22872506
Elife. 2018 Aug 14;7:
pubmed: 29969096
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Nov;24(11):2362-72
pubmed: 17703051
Syst Biol. 2018 Jan 01;67(1):14-31
pubmed: 28633306
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(10):e1003255
pubmed: 24130471
Am Nat. 2004 Dec;164(6):683-695
pubmed: 29641928
Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Feb;23(2):327-37
pubmed: 16237209
Nature. 1999 Oct 28;401(6756):877-84
pubmed: 10553904
Nature. 2011 Oct 19;478(7369):343-8
pubmed: 22012392
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 4;102(40):14338-43
pubmed: 16176987
Science. 2002 Apr 26;296(5568):750-2
pubmed: 11976460
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Mar 1;34(3):692-706
pubmed: 28007979
Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Jan;22(1):40-50
pubmed: 15356281
Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(9):1746-53
pubmed: 23940099
G3 (Bethesda). 2011 Jun;1(1):11-25
pubmed: 22384314
Integr Comp Biol. 2013 Nov;53(5):847-56
pubmed: 23748631
Genome Biol Evol. 2018 Feb 1;10(2):538-552
pubmed: 29373668
PLoS Biol. 2014 Jun 24;12(6):e1001889
pubmed: 24959919
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 23;9(1):4963
pubmed: 30470754
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Jul 1;34(7):1812-1819
pubmed: 28387841
Evolution. 2019 Dec;73(12):2352-2367
pubmed: 31657008
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jun 15;101(24):9033-8
pubmed: 15175431
Evolution. 1997 Oct;51(5):1341-1351
pubmed: 28568616
Nature. 2018 Apr;556(7701):339-344
pubmed: 29643504
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jan 27;106(4):1133-8
pubmed: 19139403
Nat Genet. 2001 Dec;29(4):482-6
pubmed: 11694880
Mol Biol Evol. 2009 Oct;26(10):2363-72
pubmed: 19602540
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Dec 8;95(25):14863-8
pubmed: 9843981
J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2015 Nov;324(7):588-604
pubmed: 26175303
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D607-D613
pubmed: 30476243
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jan 16;115(3):E409-E417
pubmed: 29301966
Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Feb 17;33(3):1051-7
pubmed: 15718304
Bioinformatics. 2012 Oct 15;28(20):2689-90
pubmed: 22908216
Cell. 2008 Jul 25;134(2):341-52
pubmed: 18662548
Genome Res. 2012 Apr;22(4):714-20
pubmed: 22287101
Proteomics. 2010 Dec;10(23):4209-12
pubmed: 21089048
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D67-72
pubmed: 26590407
Mol Biol Cell. 2016 May 15;27(10):1694-705
pubmed: 27009200
Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 1;21(17):3482-9
pubmed: 15994190
Syst Biol. 2015 Sep;64(5):695-708
pubmed: 26169525
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D733-45
pubmed: 26553804
Mol Biol Evol. 2014 Jan;31(1):201-11
pubmed: 24113538
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 11;9(4):e94335
pubmed: 24728003
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Sep 1;34(9):2125-2139
pubmed: 28575451
Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Jul;38(Web Server issue):W7-13
pubmed: 20435676