29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Exploring whole-genome duplicate gene retention with complex genetic interaction analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Whole-genome duplication has played a central role in genome evolution of many organisms, including the human genome. Most duplicated genes are eliminated and factors that influence the retention of persisting duplicates remain poorly understood. Here, we describe a systematic complex genetic interaction analysis with yeast paralogs derived from the whole-genome duplication event. Mapping digenic interactions for a deletion mutant of each paralog and trigenic interactions for the double mutant provides insight into their roles and a quantitative measure of their functional redundancy. Trigenic interaction analysis distinguishes two classes of paralogs, a more functionally divergent subset and another that retained more functional overlap. Gene feature analysis and modeling suggest that evolutionary trajectories of duplicated genes are dictated by combined functional and structural entanglement factors.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Whole genome duplication (WGD) events are pervasive in eukaryotes, shaping genomes of simple single-celled organisms, such as yeast, and more complex metazoans, including humans. Most duplicated genes are eliminated after WGD because one copy accumulates deleterious mutations, leading to its loss. However, a significant proportion of duplicates persists, and factors that result in duplicate gene retention are poorly understood but critical for understanding the evolutionary forces that shape genomes.

          Rationale:

          Quantifying the functional divergence of paralog pairs is of particular interest because of the strong selection against functional redundancy. Negative genetic interactions identify functional relationships between genes and provide a means to directly capture the functional relationship between duplicated genes. Genetic interactions occur when the phenotype associated with a combination of mutations in two or more different genes deviates from the expected combined effect of the individual mutations. A negative genetic interaction refers to a combination of mutations that generates a stronger fitness defect than expected, such as synthetic lethality. Here, we use systematic analysis of digenic and trigenic interaction profiles to assess the functional relationship of retained duplicated genes.

          Results:

          To map both digenic and trigenic interactions of duplicated genes, we profiled query strains carrying single deletion mutations and the corresponding double deletion mutations for 240 different dispensable paralog pairs originating from the yeast WGD event. In total, we tested ~550,000 double and ~260,000 triple mutants for genetic interactions and identified ~4,700 negative digenic interactions, and ~2,500 negative trigenic interactions. We quantified the trigenic interaction fraction, defined as the ratio of negative trigenic interactions to the total number of interactions associated with the paralog pair. The distribution of the resulting trigenic interaction fractions was distinctly bimodal, with two-thirds of paralogs exhibiting a low trigenic interaction fraction (diverged paralogs) and one-third showing a high trigenic interaction fraction (functionally redundant paralogs). High trigenic interaction fraction paralogs showed a relatively low asymmetry in their number of digenic interactions, low rates of protein sequence divergence, and a negative digenic interaction within the gene pair.

          We correlated position-specific evolutionary rate patterns between paralogs to assess constraints acting on their evolutionary trajectories. Paralogs with a high trigenic interaction fraction showed more correlated evolutionary rate patterns and thus were more evolutionary constrained than paralogs with a low trigenic interaction fraction. Computational simulations that modeled duplicate gene evolution revealed that as the extent of the initial entanglement (overlap of functions) of paralogs increased, so did the range of functional redundancy at steady-state. Thus, the bimodal distribution of the trigenic interaction fraction may reflect that some paralogs diverged, primarily evolving distinct functions without redundancy, while others converged to an evolutionary steady-state with substantial redundancy due to their structural and functional entanglement.

          Conclusion:

          We propose that the evolutionary fate of a duplicated gene is dictated by an interplay of structural and functional entanglement. Paralog pairs with high levels of entanglement are more likely to revert to a singleton state. In contrast, unconstrained paralogs will tend to partition their functions and adopt divergent roles. Intermediately entangled paralog pairs may partition or expand non-overlapping functions while also retaining some common, overlapping functions, such that they can both adopt paralog-specific roles and maintain functional redundancy at an evolutionarily steady-state.

          Fig. 0. Complex genetic interaction analysis of duplicated genes.

          Trigenic interaction fraction, which incorporates digenic and trigenic interactions, captures the functional relationship of duplicated genes and follows a bimodal distribution. High trigenic interaction fraction paralogs are under evolutionary constraints reflecting their structural and functional entanglement.

          One sentence summary:

          Exploring evolutionary trajectories of duplicated genes with complex genetic interaction analysis

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The genetic landscape of a cell.

          A genome-scale genetic interaction map was constructed by examining 5.4 million gene-gene pairs for synthetic genetic interactions, generating quantitative genetic interaction profiles for approximately 75% of all genes in the budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A network based on genetic interaction profiles reveals a functional map of the cell in which genes of similar biological processes cluster together in coherent subsets, and highly correlated profiles delineate specific pathways to define gene function. The global network identifies functional cross-connections between all bioprocesses, mapping a cellular wiring diagram of pleiotropy. Genetic interaction degree correlated with a number of different gene attributes, which may be informative about genetic network hubs in other organisms. We also demonstrate that extensive and unbiased mapping of the genetic landscape provides a key for interpretation of chemical-genetic interactions and drug target identification.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A global genetic interaction network maps a wiring diagram of cellular function.

            We generated a global genetic interaction network for Saccharomyces cerevisiae, constructing more than 23 million double mutants, identifying about 550,000 negative and about 350,000 positive genetic interactions. This comprehensive network maps genetic interactions for essential gene pairs, highlighting essential genes as densely connected hubs. Genetic interaction profiles enabled assembly of a hierarchical model of cell function, including modules corresponding to protein complexes and pathways, biological processes, and cellular compartments. Negative interactions connected functionally related genes, mapped core bioprocesses, and identified pleiotropic genes, whereas positive interactions often mapped general regulatory connections among gene pairs, rather than shared functionality. The global network illustrates how coherent sets of genetic interactions connect protein complex and pathway modules to map a functional wiring diagram of the cell.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dosage sensitivity and the evolution of gene families in yeast.

              According to what we term the balance hypothesis, an imbalance in the concentration of the subcomponents of a protein-protein complex can be deleterious. If so, there are two consequences: first, both underexpression and overexpression of protein complex subunits should lower fitness, and second, the accuracy of transcriptional co-regulation of subunits should reflect the deleterious consequences of imbalance. Here we show that all these predictions are upheld in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). This supports the hypothesis that dominance is a by-product of physiology and metabolism rather than the result of selection to mask the deleterious effects of mutations. Beyond this, single-gene duplication of protein subunits is expected to be harmful, as this, too, leads to imbalance. As then expected, we find that members of large gene families are rarely involved in complexes. The balance hypothesis therefore provides a single theoretical framework for understanding components both of dominance and of gene family size.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                0404511
                7473
                Science
                Science
                Science (New York, N.Y.)
                0036-8075
                1095-9203
                29 September 2020
                26 June 2020
                26 December 2020
                : 368
                : 6498
                : eaaz5667
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Donnelly Centre, University of Toronto, 160 College Street, Toronto ON, M5S 3E1, Canada.
                [2 ]Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, 160 College Street, Toronto ON, M5S 3E1, Canada.
                [3 ]Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 200 Union Street, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
                [4 ]Department of Cell & Systems Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
                [5 ]Center for Analysis of Evolution and Function, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
                [6 ]Zentrum für Molekulare Biologie der Universität Heidelberg (ZMBH), DKFZ-ZMBH Alliance, Im Neuenheimer Feld 282, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
                [7 ]Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
                [8 ]Cell Morphogenesis and Signal Transduction, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
                [9 ]Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
                Author notes
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                [‡]

                Current address: Rosalind and Morris Goodman Cancer Research Centre, McGill University, 1160 Ave des Pins Ouest, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A3, Canada.

                [#]

                Current address: Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States of America.

                [%]

                Current address: Institute of Molecular Biology (IMB), Mainz, Germany.

                [§]

                Current address: Center for Integrative Genomics, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

                Author contributions: Conceptualization: E.K., B.V., C.L.M., B.J.A., and C.B.; Methodology and investigation: E.K., B.V., A.N.N.B., W.W., E.N.K., M.U., A.K., M.M.U., J.v.L., O.K., A.T., M.P., M.C.H., B.V., M.C., M.K., A.M.; Formal analysis: E.K., B.V., A.N.N.B., W.W., E.N.K., M.U., J.v.L., O.K., A.T., A.M.; Data Curation: M.U.; Writing – original draft: E.K., B.V., C.L.M., B.J.A., and C.B.; Writing – review and editing: E.K., B.V., A.N.N.B., E.N.K., A.K., M.M.U., J.v.L., A.T., M.C., M.K., A.M., C.L.M., B.J.A., and C.B; Supervision: C.L.M., B.J.A., and C.B.; Funding acquisition: C.L.M., B.J.A., and C.B.

                Article
                PMC7539174 PMC7539174 7539174 nihpa1632180
                10.1126/science.aaz5667
                7539174
                32586993
                fdfda29f-6b21-4857-b3c8-697f07f78f0a
                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article