Gayle K Philip | PubMed Health

PubMed2006

Gene evolution and drug discovery.

Mutation and selection are the principle forces governing gene and protein sequence. Mutation is the major source of variation, and selection removes variation. Although many mutations are likely to be neutral with respect to natural selection, much of the extant sequence that is functionally important has experienced selective pressures in the past. By examining the history of DNA sequences, we can infer the functional importance of particular residues and the selective pressures that have influenced their evolution. In this chapter, we review the most interesting approaches for inferring the evolutionary history of DNA and protein sequences and indicate how these analyses can be useful in the drug discovery process.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa.

In considering the best possible solutions for answering phylogenetic questions from genomic sequences, we have chosen a strategy that we suggest is superior to others that have gone previously. We have ignored multigene families and instead have used single-gene families. This minimizes the inadvertent analysis of paralogs. We have employed strict data controls and have reasoned that if a protein is not capable of recovering the uncontroversial parts of a phylogenetic tree, then why should we use it for the more controversial parts? We have sliced and diced the data in as many ways as possible in order to uncover the signals in that data. Using this strategy, we have tested two controversial hypotheses concerning eukaryotic phylogenetic relationships: the placement of arthropoda and nematodes and the relationships of animals, plants, and fungi. We have constructed phylogenetic trees from 780 single-gene families from 10 completed genomes and amalgamated these into a single supertree. We have also carried out a total evidence analysis on the only universally distributed protein families that can accurately reconstruct the uncontroversial parts of the phylogenetic tree: a total of five families. In doing so, we ignore the majority of single-gene families that are universally distributed as they do not have the appropriate signals to recover the uncontroversial parts of the tree. We have also ignored every protein that has ever been used previously to address this issue, simply because none of them meet our strict criteria. Using these data controls, site stripping, and multiple analyses, 24 out of 26 analyses strongly support the grouping of vertebrates with arthropods (Coelomata hypothesis) and plants with animals. In the other two analyses, the data were ambivalent. The latter finding overturns an 11-year theory of Eukaryotic evolution; the first confirms what has already been said by others. In the light of this new tree, we re-analyze the evolution of intron gain and loss in the rpL14 gene and find that it is much more compatible with the hypothesis presented here than with the Opisthokonta hypothesis.

Animal Population Groups↗

PubMed2004

Does a tree-like phylogeny only exist at the tips in the prokaryotes?

The extent to which prokaryotic evolution has been influenced by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and therefore might be more of a network than a tree is unclear. Here we use supertree methods to ask whether a definitive prokaryotic phylogenetic tree exists and whether it can be confidently inferred using orthologous genes. We analysed an 11-taxon dataset spanning the deepest divisions of prokaryotic relationships, a 10-taxon dataset spanning the relatively recent gamma-proteobacteria and a 61-taxon dataset spanning both, using species for which complete genomes are available. Congruence among gene trees spanning deep relationships is not better than random. By contrast, a strong, almost perfect phylogenetic signal exists in gamma-proteobacterial genes. Deep-level prokaryotic relationships are difficult to infer because of signal erosion, systematic bias, hidden paralogy and/or HGT. Our results do not preclude levels of HGT that would be inconsistent with the notion of a prokaryotic phylogeny. This approach will help decide the extent to which we can say that there is a prokaryotic phylogeny and where in the phylogeny a cohesive genomic signal exists.

Bacteria↗