Differences in the evolutionary history of disease genes affected by dominant or recessive mutations

BackgroundGlobal analyses of human disease genes by computational methods have yielded important advances in the understanding of human diseases. Generally these studies have treated the group of disease genes uniformly, thus ignoring the type of disease-causing mutations (dominant or recessive). In this report we present a comprehensive study of the evolutionary history of autosomal disease genes separated by mode of inheritance.ResultsWe examine differences in protein and coding sequence conservation between dominant and recessive human disease genes. Our analysis shows that disease genes affected by dominant mutations are more conserved than those affected by recessive mutations. This could be a consequence of the fact that recessive mutations remain hidden from selection while heterozygous. Furthermore, we employ functional annotation analysis and investigations into disease severity to support this hypothesis.ConclusionThis study elucidates important differences between dominantly- and recessively-acting disease genes in terms of protein and DNA sequence conservation, paralogy and essentiality. We propose that the division of disease genes by mode of inheritance will enhance both understanding of the disease process and prediction of candidate disease genes in the future.

[1]  R. Guigó,et al.  Are splicing mutations the most frequent cause of hereditary disease? , 2005, FEBS letters.

[2]  Christos A Ouzounis,et al.  Structural and functional properties of genes involved in human cancer , 2006, BMC Genomics.

[3]  Alan F. Scott,et al.  Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  C. Grafton Molecular Pathology , 1976, British Journal of Cancer.

[5]  David Valle,et al.  Human disease genes , 2001, Nature.

[6]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Protein dispensability and rate of evolution , 2001, Nature.

[7]  T. Ohta Slightly Deleterious Mutant Substitutions in Evolution , 1973, Nature.

[8]  J. D. Fry,et al.  Widespread Correlations Between Dominance and Homozygous Effects of Mutations: Implications for Theories of Dominance , 2005, Genetics.

[9]  C. Pipper,et al.  [''R"--project for statistical computing]. , 2008, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[10]  H. Kacser,et al.  The molecular basis of dominance. , 1981, Genetics.

[11]  Christos A. Ouzounis,et al.  Highly consistent patterns for inherited human diseases at the molecular level , 2006, Bioinform..

[12]  J. W. Porteous Dominance--one hundred and fifteen years after Mendel's paper. , 1996, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  Kimberly Van Auken,et al.  WormBase: a multi-species resource for nematode biology and genomics , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[14]  Eugene V Koonin,et al.  A common framework for understanding the origin of genetic dominance and evolutionary fates of gene duplications. , 2004, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[15]  H. Spencer,et al.  Population genetics and evolution of genomic imprinting. , 2000, Annual review of genetics.

[16]  C. Ouzounis,et al.  Genome-wide identification of genes likely to be involved in human genetic disease. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  M S Waterman,et al.  Identification of common molecular subsequences. , 1981, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  Rory A. Fisher,et al.  The Possible Modification of the Response of the Wild Type to Recurrent Mutations , 1928, The American Naturalist.

[19]  Leo Goodstadt,et al.  Evolutionary conservation and selection of human disease gene orthologs in the rat and mouse genomes , 2004, Genome Biology.

[20]  Thangavel Alphonse Thanaraj,et al.  ASD: the Alternative Splicing Database , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  Gene Ontology Consortium The Gene Ontology (GO) database and informatics resource , 2003 .

[22]  E. Myers,et al.  Basic local alignment search tool. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  Do essential genes evolve slowly? , 1999, Current Biology.

[24]  David J. Porteous,et al.  Speeding disease gene discovery by sequence based candidate prioritization , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[25]  E. Koonin,et al.  Essential genes are more evolutionarily conserved than are nonessential genes in bacteria. , 2002, Genome research.

[26]  Wen-Hsiung Li,et al.  Rate of protein evolution versus fitness effect of gene deletion. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[27]  Donna R. Maglott,et al.  RefSeq and LocusLink: NCBI gene-centered resources , 2001, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  M. Albà,et al.  Inverse relationship between evolutionary rate and age of mammalian genes. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[29]  L. Orgel,et al.  Biochemical Evolution , 1971, Nature.

[30]  A. Eyre-Walker,et al.  Human disease genes: patterns and predictions. , 2003, Gene.

[31]  Sewall Wright,et al.  Fisher's Theory of Dominance , 1929, The American Naturalist.

[32]  Jean L. Chang,et al.  Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome , 2005, Nature.

[33]  Philip Lijnzaad,et al.  The Ensembl genome database project , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[34]  Aleksey Y Ogurtsov,et al.  Bioinformatical assay of human gene morbidity. , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[35]  Ting Chen,et al.  Further understanding human disease genes by comparing with housekeeping genes and other genes , 2006, BMC Genomics.

[36]  B. Charlesworth The effect of life-history and mode of inheritance on neutral genetic variability. , 2001, Genetical research.

[37]  Nicholas H. Barton,et al.  The Relative Rates of Evolution of Sex Chromosomes and Autosomes , 1987, The American Naturalist.