- Open Access
Biological function in the twilight zone of sequence conservation
© Ponting et al. 2017
Published: 16 August 2017
Strong DNA conservation among divergent species is an indicator of enduring functionality. With weaker sequence conservation we enter a vast ‘twilight zone’ in which sequence subject to transient or lower constraint cannot be distinguished easily from neutrally evolving, non-functional sequence. Twilight zone functional sequence is illuminated instead by principles of selective constraint and positive selection using genomic data acquired from within a species’ population. Application of these principles reveals that despite being biochemically active, most twilight zone sequence is not functional.
Function versus conservation versus constraint
Functionality of most human protein coding, and some non-coding, sequence is clearly implied when it is conserved across diverse mammalian species. This has been a rule-of-thumb by which to infer whether a sequence is functional without the benefit of experimental data. Conservation, however, is not a faithful indicator of functionality. High sequence conservation could reflect a relatively brief period of neutral evolution over which few mutations accumulated. Just because approximately 98% of human DNA is conserved in chimpanzee, for example, this does not imply that this amount of sequence conveys function. Conversely, poor conservation of a sequence does not imply that it is devoid of function. After all, low conservation could also be explained by frequent episodes when rare mutations are brought to high frequency and fixation within a population by positive selection. Thresholding on percentage nucleotide sequence identity thus fails to neatly separate functional from non-functional sequence. This means that as sequence conservation diminishes we drop into a ‘twilight zone’ [1, 2] in which DNA cannot immediately be ascribed as either functional or non-functional. Population genetics principles illuminate the functionality of sequence in the twilight zone. These can be used to assess whether sequence evolution has been constrained, meaning that it exhibits a slower rate of change than predicted by a model of neutral evolution; selective constraint is inferred by considering the degree by which allele frequencies are depressed across extant populations [3–5]. Conversely, functional sequence subject to positive selection exhibits a rate of change greater than seen for neutrally evolving sequence.
Sequence conservation and constraint are not the only benchmark by which to evaluate functionality. High throughput experimental assays are providing genome-wide assessments of functional sequence. Armed with this experimental information, can we now reveal the extent of functional sequence and associated molecular and cellular biology present in the twilight zone of low sequence conservation? Here I review instances where sequence is functional despite its low conservation, focusing principally on our own and other mammalian species. I conclude that population genomics-based approaches to predict function are paramount because, counterintuitively, experiments are not perfect predictors of function.
A twilight zone protein-coding gene
Has a poorly conserved homologous sequence diverged by weak negative selection or else by positive selection? Answering this question computationally remains a substantial challenge because some approaches are associated with high rates of false positive predictions . The most compelling examples are when candidate positively selected sites are spatially clustered within ligand-binding pockets, such as observed in mouse major urinary proteins  or in major histocompatibility complex class I subunits . As with these two studies, clear-cut instances are often found for proteins involved in reproduction—because of the genetic arms race inherent in sexual selection —or in immunity and host defence . The genetic arms race with viruses, in particular, is predicted to account for nearly a third of all positively selected change occurring in human protein sequence that is conserved across mammals . The evolution of primate and bat poly-ADP-ribose polymerases, for example, appears to have been subject to considerable genetic arms races with unidentified pathogens, resulting in positively selected sites that cluster in three dimensions and in a disordered region of unknown function .
Genes whose variants have been positively selected, including those involved in reproduction and host defence, are often in large families whose numbers are not well conserved between, or even within, species owing to high rates of duplication and/or pseudogenisation [18–20]. Nevertheless, basal mutational rates of duplication and loss are highly variable; hence, in most cases it is difficult to evaluate the contribution made by selection in retaining or purging gene duplicate and gene disruptive alleles in the population . Some examples in human evolution are more compelling because of their ability to link copy number variation with fitness. A higher gene copy number of CCL3L1, which encodes a known ligand for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) co-receptor CCR5, for example, is associated with lower susceptibility to HIV and to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and even higher copy numbers are observed in chimpanzees . In general, however, despite their high prevalence, with four-times more human nucleotides present in copy number increased regions than in single nucleotide variant sites, copy number gain of human genes appears to be under little or no selection .
To summarise the hallmarks of a rapidly evolving gene, I return to the 2310003L06Rik protein-coding locus (Fig. 1). It is a member of a large multi-gene family (namely SCPP genes) whose genes duplicated and became pseudogenes rapidly over mammalian evolution; it encodes a secreted protein, which means perhaps that it is more likely to be engaged in inter-specific conflict between host and pathogens; this protein’s structure is apparently flexible and disordered, which is less likely to evolve by purifying selection; and, its expression profile is narrowly restricted to few tissues, indeed to only one, the tongue. Nevertheless, in the absence of statistical evidence that this gene has experienced episodes of positive selection, it need only be stated that its evolution has been more rapid than that of most mammalian genes.
Twilight zone non-protein coding genes
lncRNAs are considered to fall into two distinct classes: enhancer-like lncRNAs show no sequence conservation, whereas promoter-like lncRNA exons are modestly conserved (Fig. 3) . Promoter-like lncRNAs are thus the more likely to possess RNA sequence-dependent functions. The more numerous enhancer-like lncRNAs also show poorly conserved transcription, and likely contribute many of the 40% of mouse loci whose transcription fails to be conserved in the rat in the same tissue . In the absence of frequent sequence and transcriptional conservation, and until there is experimental evidence of RNA-dependent function, such enhancer-like lncRNAs will not justify consideration as genes. For promoter-like lncRNAs, RNA sequence-dependent function could be mediated by secondary structure. Nevertheless, there is no support for proposed conserved secondary structures of well-studied lncRNAs, such as HOTAIR, SRA, and Xist, from pairwise covariation in sequence changes .
Shorter (~22 nucleotide) microRNAs are also often lineage-specific . Placental and marsupial mammals have experienced a net gain of nearly one new microRNA family per million years, over twice the rate observed in birds . Once a new family arises, it can expand rapidly by tandem duplication and lose members by pseudogenisation, as observed for a primate-specific family of 46 microRNAs present on human chromosome 19 . Concomitantly, mRNA targets of these microRNAs can evolve by the gain or loss of binding sites within mRNAs’ 3′ UTRs [39, 40].
Non-conservation of the non-functional genome
Evolution of the mammalian genome is dominated not by conservation and stasis but by tumult and large-scale change . The human genome, for example, is estimated to have lost 22% (700 Mb) of its DNA and gained an equivalent amount over the last 75 million years . Chromosomal gene content—even between closely related species—is rarely conserved. An extreme example of this is the genomes of Indian and Chinese muntjak deer that have dramatically differing numbers of chromosomes (6 and 46, respectively) despite sharing a common ancestor within the last 2 million years .
Most non-conserved sequence lies within the non-functional ~92% of the mammalian genome [4, 44]. Rapid resculpting of mammalian genomes is dominated by lineage-specific insertion and deletion of transposable element (TE) sequence whose debris, together with other repetitive sequence, contribute up to two-thirds of the human genome . Although occasionally it is proposed that a large fraction of TEs are functional , there is no evolutionary or experimental evidence to support this. Conversely, because the locations of insertion or deletion mutations in TEs occur almost exactly as would be expected from random events, the vast majority of TEs appear to be inert , with less than 2% of TE sequence (approximately 20 Mb) bearing the signature of constraint [44, 48]. The exceptions are, nevertheless, of interest: for example, 18 human Alu elements have evidence for being translated ; a handful of syncytin protein-coding genes have their origins in TEs (Fig. 4); and several families of microRNAs have derived from TEs, albeit slowly over evolutionary time [50, 51].
Twilight zone of the functional genome
Open chromatin, which contains many protein-binding sites, contributes both the largest amount of functional (area of circles in Fig. 5) and the greatest density (Fig. 5, X-axis) of functional sequence. Nevertheless, such sites, and promoters and enhancers more generally, are poorly conserved across mammals [52–55]. It is estimated that promoters for over 40% of genes have arisen or been lost in either the human or mouse lineage since their last common ancestor . In a comparison of human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken, most binding events were unique to one of these species . In large part, the rapidity by which proteins’ DNA binding sites are gained and lost is explained by their short length. In a 1-kb segment of human DNA it is predicted that a new 7–8 bp protein-binding motif arises, by neutral evolution, on average every 60,000 years .
Non-adaptive explanations of rapid evolution
Rapid evolution could also reflect higher than average mutation rates. Sequence with a high CpG dinucleotide content, including protein-coding sequence, evolves particularly rapidly owing to a high rate of mutation from the methylated form of CpG to TpG and CpA in germline genomes [58–60]. Sequence lying within the highly recombining regions of the genome also evolves especially rapidly, with one mouse gene experiencing a 100-fold increase due to this phenomenon of biased gene conversion [61, 62]. Functional regions of the non-coding genome can also mutate rapidly due to DNA-bound factors blocking the displacement of error-prone polymerase-α sequence during replication . Identifying sequences under positive selection due to adaptation is thus made more complex because not just the classical neutral model, but also models accounting for these mutational biases, need to be rejected.
Concluding remarks: what do we mean by function?
On one hand, 80% of the human genome has been annotated by experiment either as being bound by proteins or as being the substrate of enzymatic activity, the majority of which overlaps with the ~67% of the genome that is TE-derived. On the other hand, this is far more than the ~8% of the human genome that shows evolutionary evidence of constraint, and there is evidence that only very few TEs aligned between species’ genomes are constrained (see above). Resolution of this apparent paradox stems from the realisation that many (even the majority of) molecular phenomena in cells are inconsequential in the sense that they are not surveyed effectively by natural selection [64, 65]. These phenomena include non-functional RNA–protein or protein–protein or protein–DNA interactions [66–68]. In the latter case, most interactions between proteins and chromatin have been shown as failing to alter transcription of putative target genes . Current experiments are thus unable to distinguish cleanly between molecular activities that are incidental and those that are consequential, even vital. By contrast, evolutionary approaches can infer function, annotating sequence by the importance attributed to it by natural selection. Whilst problems remain to be overcome [69, 70], such approaches can discern lineage-specific function in sequence that is not conserved among species, and the absence of function in aligned, notionally conserved sequence . Human genome sequencing at the population level is now accelerating [5, 71, 72]. The resulting extensive diversity data will permit the inference of constraint at high resolution and will thus shed light on function and molecular mechanisms. It will also help to overthrow misguided notions that function requires between-species sequence conservation or that function is widespread outside constrained sequence.
The author thanks the MRC, ERC and the Wellcome Trust for funding, and also two anonymous referees, Oscar Bedoya-Reina, Luis Sanchez-Pulido and other group members for very helpful comments.
CPP wrote this article.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Doolittle RF. Of URFs and ORFs: a primer on how to analyze derived amino acid sequences. Mill Valley: University Science Books; 1986.Google Scholar
- Rost B. Twilight zone of protein sequence alignments. Protein Eng. 1999;12:85–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lawrie DS, Petrov DA. Comparative population genomics: power and principles for the inference of functionality. Trends Genet. 2014;30:133–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Gulko B, Hubisz MJ, Gronau I, Siepel A. A method for calculating probabilities of fitness consequences for point mutations across the human genome. Nat Genet. 2015;47:276–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, Samocha KE, Banks E, Fennell T, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536:285–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kawasaki K, Weiss KM. Mineralized tissue and vertebrate evolution: the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein gene cluster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:4060–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kawasaki K, Lafont AG, Sire JY. The evolution of milk casein genes from tooth genes before the origin of mammals. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28:2053–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Halligan DL, Kousathanas A, Ness RW, Harr B, Eory L, Keane TM, et al. Contributions of protein-coding and regulatory change to adaptive molecular evolution in murid rodents. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003995.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ohta T. Near-neutrality in evolution of genes and gene regulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:16134–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Harris EE. Nonadaptive processes in primate and human evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010;143 Suppl 51:13–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hughes AL. Near neutrality: leading edge of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1133:162–79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Emes RD, Beatson SA, Ponting CP, Goodstadt L. Evolution and comparative genomics of odorant- and pheromone-associated genes in rodents. Genome Res. 2004;14:591–602.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hughes AL, Nei M. Pattern of nucleotide substitution at major histocompatibility complex class I loci reveals overdominant selection. Nature. 1988;335:167–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wyckoff GJ, Wang W, Wu CI. Rapid evolution of male reproductive genes in the descent of man. Nature. 2000;403:304–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dawkins R, Krebs JR. Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979;205:489–511.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Enard D, Cai L, Gwennap C, Petrov DA. Viruses are a dominant driver of protein adaptation in mammals. Elife. 2016;5.Google Scholar
- Daugherty MD, Young JM, Kerns JA, Malik HS. Rapid evolution of PARP genes suggests a broad role for ADP-ribosylation in host-virus conflicts. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004403.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Emes RD, Goodstadt L, Winter EE, Ponting CP. Comparison of the genomes of human and mouse lays the foundation of genome zoology. Hum Mol Genet. 2003;12:701–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nei M, Rooney AP. Concerted and birth-and-death evolution of multigene families. Annu Rev Genet. 2005;39:121–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hughes AL. Natural selection and the diversification of vertebrate immune effectors. Immunol Rev. 2002;190:161–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kondrashov FA. Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation to a changing environment. Proc Biol Sci. 2012;279:5048–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Gonzalez E, Kulkarni H, Bolivar H, Mangano A, Sanchez R, Catano G, et al. The influence of CCL3L1 gene-containing segmental duplications on HIV-1/AIDS susceptibility. Science. 2005;307:1434–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sudmant PH, Mallick S, Nelson BJ, Hormozdiari F, Krumm N, Huddleston J, et al. Global diversity, population stratification, and selection of human copy-number variation. Science. 2015;349:aab3761.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kapusta A, Feschotte C. Volatile evolution of long noncoding RNA repertoires: mechanisms and biological implications. Trends Genet. 2014;30:439–52.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ponjavic J, Ponting CP, Lunter G. Functionality or transcriptional noise? Evidence for selection within long noncoding RNAs. Genome Res. 2007;17:556–65.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Carninci P, Kasukawa T, Katayama S, Gough J, Frith MC, Maeda N, et al. The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome. Science. 2005;309:1559–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haerty W, Ponting CP. Unexpected selection to retain high GC content and splicing enhancers within exons of multiexonic lncRNA loci. RNA. 2015;21:333–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schuler A, Ghanbarian AT, Hurst LD. Purifying selection on splice-related motifs, not expression level nor RNA folding, explains nearly all constraint on human lincRNAs. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;31:3164–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Necsulea A, Soumillon M, Warnefors M, Liechti A, Daish T, Zeller U, et al. The evolution of lncRNA repertoires and expression patterns in tetrapods. Nature. 2014;505:635–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Necsulea A, Kaessmann H. Evolutionary dynamics of coding and non-coding transcriptomes. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:734–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haerty W, Ponting CP. Mutations within lncRNAs are effectively selected against in fruitfly but not in human. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R49.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Wiberg RA, Halligan DL, Ness RW, Necsulea A, Kaessmann H, Keightley PD. Assessing recent selection and functionality at long noncoding RNA loci in the mouse genome. Genome Biol Evol. 2015;7:2432–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Marques AC, Hughes J, Graham B, Kowalczyk MS, Higgs DR, Ponting CP. Chromatin signatures at transcriptional start sites separate two equally populated yet distinct classes of intergenic long noncoding RNAs. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R131.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kutter C, Watt S, Stefflova K, Wilson MD, Goncalves A, Ponting CP, et al. Rapid turnover of long noncoding RNAs and the evolution of gene expression. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002841.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Rivas E, Clements J, Eddy SR. A statistical test for conserved RNA structure shows lack of evidence for structure in lncRNAs. Nat Methods. 2017;14:45–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guerra-Assuncao JA, Enright AJ. Large-scale analysis of microRNA evolution. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:218.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Meunier J, Lemoine F, Soumillon M, Liechti A, Weier M, Guschanski K, et al. Birth and expression evolution of mammalian microRNA genes. Genome Res. 2013;23:34–45.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Zhang R, Wang YQ, Su B. Molecular evolution of a primate-specific microRNA family. Mol Biol Evol. 2008;25:1493–502.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Arcila ML, Betizeau M, Cambronne XA, Guzman E, Doerflinger N, Bouhallier F, et al. Novel primate miRNAs coevolved with ancient target genes in germinal zone-specific expression patterns. Neuron. 2014;81:1255–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Heimberg AM, Sempere LF, Moy VN, Donoghue PC, Peterson KJ. MicroRNAs and the advent of vertebrate morphological complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:2946–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Young RS. Lineage-specific genomics: Frequent birth and death in the human genome: The human genome contains many lineage-specific elements created by both sequence and functional turnover. Bioessays. 2016;38:654–63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Mouse Genome Sequencing C, Waterston RH, Lindblad-Toh K, Birney E, Rogers J, Abril JF, et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature. 2002;420:520–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wurster DH, Benirschke K. Indian muntjac, Muntiacus muntjak: a deer with a low diploid chromosome number. Science. 1970;168:1364–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rands CM, Meader S, Ponting CP, Lunter G. 8.2% of the Human genome is constrained: variation in rates of turnover across functional element classes in the human lineage. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004525.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- de Koning AP, Gu W, Castoe TA, Batzer MA, Pollock DD. Repetitive elements may comprise over two-thirds of the human genome. PLoS Genet. 2011;7:e1002384.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Mattick J. Video Q&A: Non-coding RNAs and eukaryotic evolution - a personal view. BMC Biol. 2010;8:67.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Palazzo AF, Gregory TR. The case for junk DNA. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004351.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lindblad-Toh K, Garber M, Zuk O, Lin MF, Parker BJ, Washietl S, et al. A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals. Nature. 2011;478:476–82.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Lin L, Jiang P, Park JW, Wang J, Lu ZX, Lam MP, et al. The contribution of Alu exons to the human proteome. Genome Biol. 2016;17:15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Smalheiser NR, Torvik VI. Mammalian microRNAs derived from genomic repeats. Trends Genet. 2005;21:322–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Piriyapongsa J, Marino-Ramirez L, Jordan IK. Origin and evolution of human microRNAs from transposable elements. Genetics. 2007;176:1323–37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dermitzakis ET, Clark AG. Evolution of transcription factor binding sites in Mammalian gene regulatory regions: conservation and turnover. Mol Biol Evol. 2002;19:1114–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt D, Wilson MD, Ballester B, Schwalie PC, Brown GD, Marshall A, et al. Five-vertebrate ChIP-seq reveals the evolutionary dynamics of transcription factor binding. Science. 2010;328:1036–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Villar D, Berthelot C, Aldridge S, Rayner TF, Lukk M, Pignatelli M, et al. Enhancer evolution across 20 mammalian species. Cell. 2015;160:554–66.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Young RS, Hayashizaki Y, Andersson R, Sandelin A, Kawaji H, Itoh M, et al. The frequent evolutionary birth and death of functional promoters in mouse and human. Genome Res. 2015;25:1546–57.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Durrett R, Schmidt D. Waiting for regulatory sequences to appear. Ann Appl Probab. 2007;17:1–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Koonin EV. Splendor and misery of adaptation, or the importance of neutral null for understanding evolution. BMC Biol. 2016;14:114.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Sved J, Bird A. The expected equilibrium of the CpG dinucleotide in vertebrate genomes under a mutation model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:4692–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cooper DN, Youssoufian H. The CpG dinucleotide and human genetic disease. Hum Genet. 1988;78:151–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Subramanian S, Kumar S. Neutral substitutions occur at a faster rate in exons than in noncoding DNA in primate genomes. Genome Res. 2003;13:838–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Glemin S, Arndt PF, Messer PW, Petrov D, Galtier N, Duret L. Quantification of GC-biased gene conversion in the human genome. Genome Res. 2015;25:1215–28.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Berglund J, Pollard KS, Webster MT. Hotspots of biased nucleotide substitutions in human genes. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reijns MA, Kemp H, Ding J, de Proce SM, Jackson AP, Taylor MS. Lagging-strand replication shapes the mutational landscape of the genome. Nature. 2015;518:502–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Doolittle WF, Brunet TD, Linquist S, Gregory TR. Distinguishing between "function" and "effect" in genome biology. Genome Biol Evol. 2014;6:1234–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Doolittle WF. Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:5294–300.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Davidovich C, Wang X, Cifuentes-Rojas C, Goodrich KJ, Gooding AR, Lee JT, et al. Toward a consensus on the binding specificity and promiscuity of PRC2 for RNA. Mol Cell. 2015;57:552–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Zhang J, Maslov S, Shakhnovich EI. Constraints imposed by non-functional protein-protein interactions on gene expression and proteome size. Mol Syst Biol. 2008;4:210.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cusanovich DA, Pavlovic B, Pritchard JK, Gilad Y. The functional consequences of variation in transcription factor binding. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004226.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Brandvain Y, Wright SI. The limits of natural selection in a nonequilibrium world. Trends Genet. 2016;32:201–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Messer PW, Ellner SP, Hairston Jr NG. Can population genetics adapt to rapid evolution? Trends Genet. 2016;32:408–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gudbjartsson DF, Helgason H, Gudjonsson SA, Zink F, Oddson A, Gylfason A, et al. Large-scale whole-genome sequencing of the Icelandic population. Nat Genet. 2015;47:435–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Telenti A, Pierce LC, Biggs WH, di Iulio J, Wong EH, Fabani MM, et al. Deep sequencing of 10,000 human genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:11901–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Brown CJ, Takayama S, Campen AM, Vise P, Marshall TW, Oldfield CJ, et al. Evolutionary rate heterogeneity in proteins with long disordered regions. J Mol Evol. 2002;55:104–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Winter EE, Goodstadt L, Ponting CP. Elevated rates of protein secretion, evolution, and disease among tissue-specific genes. Genome Res. 2004;14:54–61.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bellay J, Han S, Michaut M, Kim T, Costanzo M, Andrews BJ, et al. Bringing order to protein disorder through comparative genomics and genetic interactions. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Church DM, Goodstadt L, Hillier LW, Zody MC, Goldstein S, She X, et al. Lineage-specific biology revealed by a finished genome assembly of the mouse. PLoS Biol. 2009;7:e1000112.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Yang Z. PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput Appl Biosci. 1997;13:555–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mallick S, Gnerre S, Muller P, Reich D. The difficulty of avoiding false positives in genome scans for natural selection. Genome Res. 2009;19:922–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Markova-Raina P, Petrov D. High sensitivity to aligner and high rate of false positives in the estimates of positive selection in the 12 Drosophila genomes. Genome Res. 2011;21:863–74.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Heger A, Ponting CP, Holmes I. Accurate estimation of gene evolutionary rates using XRATE, with an application to transmembrane proteins. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26:1715–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hurst LD. The Ka/Ks ratio: diagnosing the form of sequence evolution. Trends Genet. 2002;18:486.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chodroff RA, Goodstadt L, Sirey TM, Oliver PL, Davies KE, Green ED, et al. Long noncoding RNA genes: conservation of sequence and brain expression among diverse amniotes. Genome Biol. 2010;11:R72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kryuchkova-Mostacci N, Robinson-Rechavi M. Tissue-specificity of gene expression diverges slowly between orthologs, and rapidly between paralogs. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12:e1005274.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Duret L, Chureau C, Samain S, Weissenbach J, Avner P. The Xist RNA gene evolved in eutherians by pseudogenization of a protein-coding gene. Science. 2006;312:1653–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heinen TJ, Staubach F, Haming D, Tautz D. Emergence of a new gene from an intergenic region. Curr Biol. 2009;19:1527–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cao X, Yeo G, Muotri AR, Kuwabara T, Gage FH. Noncoding RNAs in the mammalian central nervous system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2006;29:77–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dupressoir A, Lavialle C, Heidmann T. From ancestral infectious retroviruses to bona fide cellular genes: role of the captured syncytins in placentation. Placenta. 2012;33:663–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Winter EE, Ponting CP. Mammalian BEX, WEX and GASP genes: coding and non-coding chimaerism sustained by gene conversion events. BMC Evol Biol. 2005;5:54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dennis MY, Nuttle X, Sudmant PH, Antonacci F, Graves TA, Nefedov M, et al. Evolution of human-specific neural SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication. Cell. 2012;149:912–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Hertel J, Lindemeyer M, Missal K, Fried C, Tanzer A, Flamm C, et al. The expansion of the metazoan microRNA repertoire. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Wray GA. Molecular clocks and the early evolution of metazoan nervous systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370:20150046.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- O'Leary MA, Bloch JI, Flynn JJ, Gaudin TJ, Giallombardo A, Giannini NP, et al. The placental mammal ancestor and the post-K-Pg radiation of placentals. Science. 2013;339:662–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Springer MS, Murphy WJ, Eizirik E, O'Brien SJ. Placental mammal diversification and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:1056–61.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar