| Literature DB >> 19123937 |
Suganthi Balasubramanian1, Deyou Zheng, Yuen-Jong Liu, Gang Fang, Adam Frankish, Nicholas Carriero, Rebecca Robilotto, Philip Cayting, Mark Gerstein.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The availability of genome sequences of numerous organisms allows comparative study of pseudogenes in syntenic regions. Conservation of pseudogenes suggests that they might have a functional role in some instances.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19123937 PMCID: PMC2687790 DOI: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-1-r2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Biol ISSN: 1474-7596 Impact factor: 13.583
Total number of processed RP pseudogenes in human, chimpanzee, mouse and rat genomes identified by the pipeline [17]
| Organism | Processed | Fragment | LC |
| Human | 1,822 | 218 | 212 |
| Chimpanzee | 1,462 | 219 | 160 |
| Mouse | 2,092 | 326 | 413 |
| Rat | 2,848 | 343 | 450 |
LC, low confidence matches.
Figure 1Plot of expression level of mRNA in testes associated with each RP protein versus the number of processed pseudogenes associated with it. The top and bottom panels correspond to human and mouse RP pseudogenes, respectively. The x-axis shows signal on the gene chip, which is a measure of the abundance of a mRNA transcript. Data for the human and mouse are not normalized to each other and should not be compared directly. It should be noted that expression data for some RP proteins for mouse are missing in the GEO data.
Figure 2Plots depicting the number of processed pseudogenes associated with a RP protein in one organism and its corresponding ortholog in another organism. The top panel shows the comparison between human versus mouse and the bottom panel depicts the same for mouse versus rat RP pseudogenes. Each point corresponds to the number of processed RP pseudogenes associated with one RP in the two species that are being compared.
Figure 3Schematic representation of the method used to identify syntenic regions between two species. In this figure, the pseudogenes are depicted as yellow boxes and human genes that have orthologs in mouse have been labeled. As explained in the text, the human gene SPRY1 and Y1223_HUMAN sandwich the processed RP pseudogene of RPL21 and have corresponding orthologs in the mouse genome. Thus, we identify this region as being syntenic between human and mouse. Orthologs were identified based on annotations from Ensembl release 36.
Number of processed RP pseudogenes found in syntenic regions
| Species1-species2 | Number of processed RP pseudogenes in syntenic regions |
| Human-chimpanzee | 1,282 |
| Human-mouse | 6 |
| Human-rat | 11 |
| Mouse-rat | 394 |
Figure 4Processed pseudogenes grouped according to their nucleotide sequence divergence from the parent RP protein. The distances have been calculated using MEGA [28]. The distance is a measure of the number of nucleotide substitutions per site. For mouse and rat, the distances have been scaled by decreasing it by a factor of three based on the reported observation that a threefold-higher rate of base substitution in neutral DNA is found along the rodent lineage when compared with the human lineage [20].
Comparison of number of nucleotide substitutions per site between pseudogenes and intergenic sequences in syntenic regions of human and mouse
| RP protein | Human chromosomal location | Mouse chromosomal location | Pseudogenes | Intergenic regions | EST evidence |
| RPL21 | 4:125024510:125024986:- | 3:37423214:37423683:- | 0.292 | 1.082 | -- |
| RPL29 | 8:49459705:49460174:+ | 16:13988323:13988790:- | 0.374 | 1.205 | +- |
| RPL35A | 4:164660936:164661273:+ | 8:65697845:65698079:- | 0.312 | 1.101 | -- |
| RPL7A | 18:35168834:35169634:- | 18:26052080:26052856:- | 0.123 | 1.098 | -- |
| RPS27 | 15:61234862:61234984:- | 9:67074892:67075023:+ | 0.159 | 1.137 | ++ |
The chromosomal coordinates are indicated as follows: 'Chromosome number:Start:End:Strand'. For the EST evidence column, the first symbol denotes transcription in human and the second symbol transcription in mouse; a plus sign (+) indicates evidence of transcription and a minus sign (-) indicates absence of transcriptional evidence.