Promoter evolution of mammalian gene duplicates.
Cis-regulation
CpG Islands
Gene duplication
Metazoan promoters
Promoter evolution
Journal
BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 04 2023
13 04 2023
Historique:
received:
07
11
2022
accepted:
06
04
2023
medline:
17
4
2023
entrez:
13
4
2023
pubmed:
14
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gene duplication is thought to be a central process in evolution to gain new functions. The factors that dictate gene retention following duplication as well paralog gene divergence in sequence, expression and function have been extensively studied. However, relatively little is known about the evolution of promoter regions of gene duplicates and how they influence gene duplicate divergence. Here, we focus on promoters of paralog genes, comparing their similarity in sequence, in the sets of transcription factors (TFs) that bind them, and in their overall promoter architecture. We observe that promoters of recent duplications display higher sequence similarity between them and that sequence similarity rapidly declines between promoters of more ancient paralogs. In contrast, similarity in cis-regulation, as measured by the set of TFs that bind promoters of both paralogs, does not simply decrease with time from duplication and is instead related to promoter architecture-paralogs with CpG Islands (CGIs) in their promoters share a greater fraction of TFs, while CGI-less paralogs are more divergent in their TF binding set. Focusing on recent duplication events and partitioning them by their duplication mechanism enables us to uncover promoter properties associated with gene retention, as well as to characterize the evolution of promoters of newly born genes: In recent retrotransposition-mediated duplications, we observe asymmetry in cis-regulation of paralog pairs: Retrocopy genes are lowly expressed and their promoters are bound by fewer TFs and are depleted of CGIs, in comparison with the original gene copy. Furthermore, looking at recent segmental duplication regions in primates enable us to compare successful retentions versus loss of duplicates, showing that duplicate retention is associated with fewer TFs and with CGI-less promoter architecture. In this work, we profiled promoters of gene duplicates and their inter-paralog divergence. We also studied how their characteristics are associated with duplication time and duplication mechanism, as well as with the fate of these duplicates. These results underline the importance of cis-regulatory mechanisms in shaping the evolution of new genes and their fate following duplication.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Gene duplication is thought to be a central process in evolution to gain new functions. The factors that dictate gene retention following duplication as well paralog gene divergence in sequence, expression and function have been extensively studied. However, relatively little is known about the evolution of promoter regions of gene duplicates and how they influence gene duplicate divergence. Here, we focus on promoters of paralog genes, comparing their similarity in sequence, in the sets of transcription factors (TFs) that bind them, and in their overall promoter architecture.
RESULTS
We observe that promoters of recent duplications display higher sequence similarity between them and that sequence similarity rapidly declines between promoters of more ancient paralogs. In contrast, similarity in cis-regulation, as measured by the set of TFs that bind promoters of both paralogs, does not simply decrease with time from duplication and is instead related to promoter architecture-paralogs with CpG Islands (CGIs) in their promoters share a greater fraction of TFs, while CGI-less paralogs are more divergent in their TF binding set. Focusing on recent duplication events and partitioning them by their duplication mechanism enables us to uncover promoter properties associated with gene retention, as well as to characterize the evolution of promoters of newly born genes: In recent retrotransposition-mediated duplications, we observe asymmetry in cis-regulation of paralog pairs: Retrocopy genes are lowly expressed and their promoters are bound by fewer TFs and are depleted of CGIs, in comparison with the original gene copy. Furthermore, looking at recent segmental duplication regions in primates enable us to compare successful retentions versus loss of duplicates, showing that duplicate retention is associated with fewer TFs and with CGI-less promoter architecture.
CONCLUSIONS
In this work, we profiled promoters of gene duplicates and their inter-paralog divergence. We also studied how their characteristics are associated with duplication time and duplication mechanism, as well as with the fate of these duplicates. These results underline the importance of cis-regulatory mechanisms in shaping the evolution of new genes and their fate following duplication.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37055747
doi: 10.1186/s12915-023-01590-6
pii: 10.1186/s12915-023-01590-6
pmc: PMC10100218
doi:
Substances chimiques
Transcription Factors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
80Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 Jan 8;48(D1):D756-D761
pubmed: 31691824
Database (Oxford). 2016 Feb 20;2016:
pubmed: 26896847
Sci Adv. 2019 Jun 26;5(6):eaav0547
pubmed: 31249862
Trends Genet. 2005 Oct;21(10):548-51
pubmed: 16098632
Genome Res. 2016 Mar;26(3):301-14
pubmed: 26728716
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 23;7(1):4200
pubmed: 28646208
BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Jan 27;7:46
pubmed: 16441884
Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2007 Jun;19(3):273-80
pubmed: 17466503
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Jan;11(1):17-30
pubmed: 19953080
J Mol Evol. 1980 Dec;16(2):111-20
pubmed: 7463489
Epigenetics. 2011 Feb;6(2):147-52
pubmed: 20935486
Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Dec;6(12):881-92
pubmed: 16341069
Genome Res. 2014 Jul;24(7):1115-24
pubmed: 24985914
Genome Res. 2016 Jun;26(6):787-98
pubmed: 27197209
Elife. 2020 Jun 01;9:
pubmed: 32479260
Brief Bioinform. 2013 Mar;14(2):144-61
pubmed: 22908213
Science. 2000 Nov 10;290(5494):1151-5
pubmed: 11073452
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Feb;11(2):97-108
pubmed: 20051986
Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Mar;8(3):206-16
pubmed: 17304246
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 Jul 1;35(7):1626-1637
pubmed: 29617834
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):5932-7
pubmed: 24711408
Nat Genet. 2007 Sep;39(9):1140-4
pubmed: 17694055
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Jul 15;15:138
pubmed: 26173681
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Oct 22;110(43):17409-14
pubmed: 24101476
Genes Dev. 2011 May 15;25(10):1010-22
pubmed: 21576262
Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Sep;14(9):645-60
pubmed: 23949544
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jul 2;47(W1):W191-W198
pubmed: 31066453
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Sep 11;109(37):14746-53
pubmed: 22908297
Genome Biol. 2012 Nov 27;13(11):R110
pubmed: 23186133
Science. 2020 Jun 26;368(6498):
pubmed: 32586993
Mol Cell Biol. 1997 Mar;17(3):1469-75
pubmed: 9032274
Nat Rev Genet. 2012 Mar 06;13(4):233-45
pubmed: 22392219
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
Cell. 1985 Jan;40(1):91-9
pubmed: 2981636
Mol Biol Evol. 2019 Jan 1;36(1):15-27
pubmed: 30395322
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Apr 17;109(16):E944-53
pubmed: 22451944
Genome Biol. 2002;3(2):RESEARCH0008
pubmed: 11864370
DNA Res. 2012;19(4):305-16
pubmed: 22490996
Elife. 2013 Feb 26;2:e00348
pubmed: 23467541
Nat Genet. 2006 Jun;38(6):626-35
pubmed: 16645617
Cell. 2015 Jan 29;160(3):554-66
pubmed: 25635462
PeerJ. 2019 Jun 25;7:e7204
pubmed: 31275764
Genes (Basel). 2011 Feb 18;2(1):191-209
pubmed: 24710144
Genome Biol. 2006;7(5):R43
pubmed: 16723033
Genome Biol Evol. 2010;2:518-33
pubmed: 20660939
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D729-D735
pubmed: 30462313
Mol Syst Biol. 2019 Sep;15(9):e8871
pubmed: 31556487
Genome Biol. 2018 Jun 26;19(1):81
pubmed: 29945659
Science. 2016 May 20;352(6288):1009-13
pubmed: 27199432
Genome Res. 2014 Sep;24(9):1497-503
pubmed: 25015383
Bioinformatics. 2006 May 15;22(10):1269-71
pubmed: 16543274
G3 (Bethesda). 2014 Jun 06;4(8):1479-89
pubmed: 24906640
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Nov 1;34(11):2773-2791
pubmed: 28981708
Science. 2015 May 8;348(6235):648-60
pubmed: 25954001
Genome Res. 2017 Sep;27(9):1461-1474
pubmed: 28743766
Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7817):578-584
pubmed: 32699395
PLoS Comput Biol. 2021 Dec 6;17(12):e1009638
pubmed: 34871317
Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 Jan 8;48(D1):D724-D730
pubmed: 31612943
J Mol Biol. 2022 Jan 30;434(2):167355
pubmed: 34774569
Mol Biol Evol. 2020 May 1;37(5):1452-1461
pubmed: 31904835
Genome Biol. 2007;8(12):R263
pubmed: 18072969
Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7730):197-202
pubmed: 30356220