- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text
- Full Text (PDF)
- Data Supplement
-
All Versions of this Article:
genetics.108.091538v1
181/1/313 most recent - Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Email this article to a friend
- Related articles in Genetics
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Rogers, R. L.
- Articles by Hartl, D. L.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Rogers, R. L.
- Articles by Hartl, D. L.
Originally published as Genetics Published Articles Ahead of Print on November 17, 2008.
Genetics, Vol. 181, 313-322, January 2009, Copyright © 2009
doi:10.1534/genetics.108.091538
Formation and Longevity of Chimeric and Duplicate Genes in Drosophila melanogaster
Rebekah L. Rogers1, Trevor Bedford2 and Daniel L. Hartl
Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
1 Corresponding author: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138.
E-mail: rrogers{at}oeb.harvard.edu
Historically, duplicate genes have been regarded as a major source of novel genetic material. However, recent work suggests that chimeric genes formed through the fusion of pieces of different genes may also contribute to the evolution of novel functions. To compare the contribution of chimeric and duplicate genes to genome evolution, we measured their prevalence and persistence within Drosophila melanogaster. We find that
80.4 duplicates form per million years, but most are rapidly eliminated from the genome, leaving only 4.1% to be preserved by natural selection. Chimeras form at a comparatively modest rate of
11.4 per million years but follow a similar pattern of decay, with ultimately only 1.4% of chimeras preserved. We propose two mechanisms of chimeric gene formation, which rely entirely on local, DNA-based mutations to explain the structure and placement of the youngest chimeric genes observed. One involves imprecise excision of an unpaired duplication during large-loop mismatch repair, while the other invokes a process akin to replication slippage to form a chimeric gene in a single event. Our results paint a dynamic picture of both chimeras and duplicate genes within the genome and suggest that chimeric genes contribute substantially to genomic novelty.
Related articles in Genetics:
ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS
Genetics 2009 181: NP.