|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 4/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The origin of new genes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
In recent threads the role of mutation for evolutionary processes has been the point of issue. One side seems to claim that the phenotypic and genetic diversity of sexual reproducing organism can be explained without mutation - all observed “novel” traits are viewed simply as the result of a new combination of pre-existing alleles.
It might therefore be interesting to discuss the molecular processes which generate new genes.A good introduction offers the following review published in Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 865-875 (2003), which describes the currently known mechanism of novel gene formation:
In order to keep the discussion focused I would propose to concentrate on “jingwei” a recently (~ 2.5 million years BP) evolved gene in Drosophila, which has been formed by the combination of exon shuffling, retroposition and gene duplication. The article provides a short overview:
In the early 1990s, the first young gene to be described was jingwei in a group of African Drosophila species32. It provided enough details for the molecular mechanism underlying its origination to be deduced. A portion of jingwei was found to be a homologue of the Adh gene that encodes alcohol dehydrogenase98 and was later characterized as a retrosequence of Adh99. Further population genetic, molecular biological and comparative phylogenetic analyses showed it to be a new processed functional gene that originated around 2 million years ago in the common ancestor of two African Drosophila species, Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila teissieri. In the ancestral species, there were two single copy genes, yellow-emperor (ymp) and Adh. yellow-emperor was duplicated into two copies: one also called yellow-emperor and the other called yande (ynd)100,101.Whereas yellow-emperor maintained its original functions, yande was further involved in the origin of jingwei. In the short time before the speciation event, Adh mRNA retroposed into the third intron of yande as a fused exon and recombined with the first three yande exons. This formed jingwei, which is a gene that is translated into a chimeric protein. The funtion of jingwei has been described in the following article . The abstract reads:
The mechanism by which protein functional diversity expands is an important evolutionary issue. Studies of recently evolved chimeric genes permit direct investigation of the origin of new protein functions before they become obscured by subsequent evolution. Found in several African Drosophila species, jingwei (jgw), a recently evolved gene with a domain derived from the still extant short-chain alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) through retroposition, provides an opportunity to examine this previously undescribed process directly. We expressed JGW proteins in a microbial expression system and, after purification, investigated their enzymatic properties. We found that, unexpectedly, positive Darwinian selection for amino acid replacements outside the active site of JGW produced a novel dehydrogenase with altered substrate specificity compared with the ancestral ADH. Instead of detoxifying and assimilating ethanol like its Adh parental gene, we observe that JGW efficiently utilizes long-chain primary alcohols found in hormone and pheromone metabolism. These data suggest that protein functional diversity can expand rapidly under the joint forces of exon shuffling, gene duplication, and natural selection.
Taken together I claim that we look at an example that mutation created a novel, useful gene - which seems to me difficult to reconcile with the above mentioned view which implies that no natural process is able to create new alleles, let alone new genes. -Bernd Edited by bernd, : Spelling correction Edited by bernd, : insertion of "which implies" in last sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Faith,
you seem to accept that new genes are formed by mutation in bacteria and drosophila, but you ask for evidence that the same holds true for mammals. I would propose to have a closer look at the review I already provided in my opening post, specially at table 2 which lists 22 examples of novel genes within drosophila, primates, rodents, fish, plants and protozoa (each with references to the relevant primary literature). You’ll find 11 examples of mammalian genes, one - named FOXP2 - is a transcription factor which controls language and speech related functions in homo sapiens. Another example of an "useful" mammalian gene would be GLUD2, a gene, which probably affects higher cognitive functions. It has been formed by retrotransposition from the household gene GLUD1 in the hominoid line about 23 million years BP. It is expressed in human nerve and testis tissue and seems to positively influence cognitive functions by enhancing the flux of a neurotransmiter. To answer your last question
faith writes:
Please read the chapter “Frequency of origin of new genes” in the above mentioned article . Whereas the exact rate of novel gene formation is yet not known, it is clear that processes like exon shuffling ore retrotransposition have shaped the genome of the eukaryotes. To give an example: at least two independent studies - a detailed structural analysis of protein super families and the observed distribution of intron phases - support that exon shuffling was involved in the evolution of most eukaryotic genes.
Considering how many alleles already exist in most populations of sexually reproducing animalia how on earth would you know if the occasional mutation contributed anything whatever to the processes that lead to variation, as opposed to the usual shuffling of gene frequencies among those already in existence?
-Bernd Edited by bernd, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Faith,
Regarding the evolution of colour vision you wrote:
I would really like to know how you think you KNOW that a mutation was involved.
Maybe we should walk step by step through the following article. The author claimes to explain “the Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication in New World and Old World Primates”. The abstract reads:
Trichromacy in all Old World primates is dependent on separate X-linked MW and LW opsin genes that are organized into a head-to-tail tandem array flanked on the upstream side by a locus control region (LCR). The 5' regions of these two genes show homology for only the first 236 bp, although within this region, the differences are conserved in humans, chimpanzees, and two species of cercopithecoid monkeys. In contrast, most New World primates have only a single polymorphic X-linked opsin gene; all males are dichromats and trichromacy is achieved only in those females that possess a different form of this gene on each X chromosome. By sequencing the upstream region of this gene in a New World monkey, the marmoset, we have been able to demonstrate the presence of an LCR in an equivalent position to that in Old World primates. Moreover, the marmoset sequence shows extensive homology from the coding region to the LCR with the upstream sequence of the human LW gene, a distance of >3 kb, whereas homology with the human MW gene is again limited to the first 236 bp, indicating that the divergent MW sequence identifies the site of insertion of the duplicated gene. This is further supported by the presence of an incomplete Alu element on the upstream side of this insertion point in the MW gene of both humans and a cercopithecoid monkey, with additional Alu elements present further upstream. Therefore, these Alu elements may have been involved in the initial gene duplication and may also be responsible for the high frequency of gene loss and gene duplication within the opsin gene array. Full trichromacy is present in one species of New World monkey, the howler monkey, in which separate MW and LW genes are again present. In contrast to the separate genes in humans, however, the upstream sequences of the two howler genes show homology with the marmoset for at least 600 bp, which is well beyond the point of divergence of the human MW and LW genes, and each sequence is associated with a different LCR, indicating that the duplication in the howler monkey involved the entire upstream region
So far understood? If not, please pose your questions. I'll try to answer them until tomorrow. -Bernd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Faith,
You wrote:
don't know why it is so hard to get this across, but I DO NOT DENY THAT NEW ALLELES ARE FORMED BY MUTATION. I don't know about genes. Genes are specific loci as I understand it, which are occupied by whatever number of alleles are available for that locus in a given population. I'm not aware that actual new genes are said to be created by mutation, merely alleles for that function
We obviously have a different understanding of the tems like gene, allele and locus. I propose the following definitions Gen: Structurally, a basic unit of hereditary material; an ordered sequence of nucleotide bases that encodes a product (this product could be just RNA like rRNA or finally coding for a protein). The gene includes, however, regions preceding and following the coding region (5' UTR and 3' UTR) as well as (in eukaryotes) intervening sequences (introns) between individual coding segments (exons). Allele: Alternative form of a gene. One of the different forms of a gene that can exist at a single locus Gen locus: The specific place on a chromosome where a gene is located. The topic of this thread is the origin of genes, not of alleles.
But the problem is that the evidence for a particular allele's being really the product of a mutation and yet also beneficial, truly novel and truly functional as well, is pretty scant. But of course I still can't read links so I may have missed THE evidence. Most of the new links I try cause my computer to freeze up.
In the case of GLUD2 we can reconstruct the evolutionary history of the gene by analysing its sequence differences in primates. Here are the results:
The results support that GLUD2 is a young primate retrogene created by retroduplication of GLUD1 with subsequent evolution of its brain specific function.
How do you know it's a mutation as opposed to a normally occurring alternative allele?
In the case of GLUD2 we know that it is not simply an allele because its linked to a different chromosome (GLUD1 is linked to chromosome 10, GLUD2 is X linked).
If it's a mutation, how sure are you that it is not contributing something the organism would be better off without?
Because decreased activity of GLUD2 leads to neurodegenerative disorders. -Bernd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Philip,
It seems that jerker77 isn’t inclined to answer your post, I hope you don’t mind when I step in. You asked to stop qualifying your analogies as "childish" and instead to focus on “BRAND NEW GENES" as REALITY or MYTH.”. Let’s just do it. Here is another example of a new gene, described in Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey The abstract reads:
Although the complete genome sequences of over 50 representative species have revealed the many duplicated genes in all three domains of life1, 2, 3, 4, the roles of gene duplication in organismal adaptation and biodiversity are poorly understood. In addition, the evolutionary forces behind the functional divergence of duplicated genes are often unknown, leading to disagreement on the relative importance of positive Darwinian selection versus relaxation of functional constraints in this process5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The methodology of earlier studies relied largely on DNA sequence analysis but lacked functional assays of duplicated genes, frequently generating contentious results11, 12. Here we use both computational and experimental approaches to address these questions in a study of the pancreatic ribonuclease gene (RNASE1) and its duplicate gene (RNASE1B) in a leaf-eating colobine monkey, douc langur. We show that RNASE1B has evolved rapidly under positive selection for enhanced ribonucleolytic activity in an altered microenvironment, a response to increased demands for the enzyme for digesting bacterial RNA. At the same time, the ability to degrade double-stranded RNA, a non-digestive activity characteristic of primate RNASE1, has been lost in RNASE1B, indicating functional specialization and relaxation of purifying selection. Our findings demonstrate the contribution of gene duplication to organismal adaptation and show the power of combining sequence analysis and functional assays in delineating the molecular basis of adaptive evolution.
-Bernd Edited by bernd, : spelling Edited by bernd, : fixed broken link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Philip,
on a general note, this thread is not about "beneficial mutations" but about the origin of new genes - a detail which may have escaped your attention. So please address the evidence presented in the article that RNASE1B is the result of a duplication of RNASE1A and that RNASE1B evolved quickly to produce a enzyme necessary for digesting bacterial RNA. -Bernd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Philip,
The difference between discussing “beneficial mutations” and discussing the origin of new genes is one of scope. The term mutation - at least in the scientific literature - means change in genetic material and covers the whole range between point mutations and change of the chromosomal structure. This thread should be restricted to the processes which give rise to new genes. You asked me what I require you to do? I have to quote my last post:
So please address the evidence presented in the article that RNASE1B is the result of a duplication of RNASE1A and that RNASE1B evolved quickly to produce a enzyme necessary for digesting bacterial RNA.
-Bernd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4008 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
Hello Philip,
You seem to base your idea that it is not possible to create “brand new allelic functions, let alone brand new genes” on an analogy between the mammalian gene pool and the “Gene- Pool-Software-Program (GPSP)”, a “brand new concept” just invented by you. When I understand you correctly your idea is that gene pools are somehow comparable to C programs running under Windows. At least to me - having some experience with software development - this line of thought appears a bit far fetched. So I would ask you to present your concept in a different thread, for example by explaining how the following structures and mechanism would be interpreted in the context of the GPSP:
-Bernd Edited by bernd, : update of the list
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024