Analysis of human disease genes in the context of gene essentiality.

The characteristics of human disease genes were investigated through a comparative analysis with mouse mutant phenotype data. Mouse orthologs with mutations that resulted in discernible phenotypes were separated from mutations with no phenotypic defect, listing 'phenotype' and 'no phenotype' genes. First, we showed that phenotype genes are more likely to be disease genes compared to no phenotype genes. Phenotype genes were further divided into 'embryonic lethal', 'postnatal lethal', and 'non-lethal phenotype' groups. Interestingly, embryonic lethal genes, the most essential genes in mouse, were less likely to be disease genes than postnatal lethal genes. These findings indicate that some extremely essential genes are less likely to be disease genes, although human disease genes tend to display characteristics of essential genes. We also showed that, in lethal groups, non-disease genes tend to evolve slower than disease genes indicating a strong purifying selection on non-disease genes in this group. In addition, phenotype and no phenotype groups showed differing types of disease mutations. Disease genes in the no phenotype group displayed a higher frequency of regulatory mutations while those in the phenotype group had more frequent coding mutations, indicating that the types of disease mutations vary depending on gene essentiality. Furthermore, missense disease mutations in no phenotype genes were found to be more radical amino acid substitutions than those in phenotype genes.

[1]  A. Butte,et al.  Further defining housekeeping, or "maintenance," genes Focus on "A compendium of gene expression in normal human tissues". , 2001, Physiological genomics.

[2]  A. Barabasi,et al.  The human disease network , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Eduardo P C Rocha,et al.  An analysis of determinants of amino acids substitution rates in bacterial proteins. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

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

[6]  Rick Stevens,et al.  Essential genes on metabolic maps. , 2006, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[7]  S. Bortoluzzi,et al.  Disease genes and intracellular protein networks. , 2003, Physiological genomics.

[8]  Eduardo P C Rocha,et al.  The quest for the universals of protein evolution. , 2006, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[9]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[10]  G. Stephanopoulos,et al.  A compendium of gene expression in normal human tissues. , 2001, Physiological genomics.

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

[12]  Dennis P Wall,et al.  A simple dependence between protein evolution rate and the number of protein-protein interactions , 2003, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

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

[14]  Dan Graur,et al.  Ratios of radical to conservative amino acid replacement are affected by mutational and compositional factors and may not be indicative of positive Darwinian selection. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

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

[16]  A. Lathrop,et al.  FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF TUMORS IN MICE , 1915, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[17]  Wen-Hsiung Li.  Unbiased estimation of the rates of synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution , 2006, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[18]  J. Warrington,et al.  Comparison of human adult and fetal expression and identification of 535 housekeeping/maintenance genes. , 2000, Physiological genomics.

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

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

[21]  A. Hughes,et al.  Adaptive diversification within a large family of recently duplicated, placentally expressed genes. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  R. Grantham.  Amino Acid Difference Formula to Help Explain Protein Evolution , 1974, Science.

[23]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  Genomic function (communication arising): Rate of evolution and gene dispensability , 2003, Nature.

[24]  A. Lathrop,et al.  Further investigations on the origin of tumors in mice. III. On the part played by internal secretion in the spontaneous development of tumors. , 1916, The Journal of cancer research.

[25]  A. E. Hirsh,et al.  Functional genomic analysis of the rates of protein evolution. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.