Literature DB >> 32638015

Higher Germline Mutagenesis of Genes with Stronger Testis Expressions Refutes the Transcriptional Scanning Hypothesis.

Haoxuan Liu1, Jianzhi Zhang1.   

Abstract

Why are more genes expressed in the testis than in any other organ in mammals? The recently proposed transcriptional scanning hypothesis posits that transcription alleviates mutagenesis through transcription-coupled repair so has been selected in the testis to modulate the germline mutation rate in a gene-specific manner. Here, we show that this hypothesis is theoretically untenable because the selection would be too weak to have an effect in mammals. Furthermore, the analysis purported to support the hypothesis did not control known confounding factors and inappropriately excluded genes with no observed de novo mutations. After remedying these problems, we find the human germline mutation rate of a gene to rise with its testis expression level. This trend also exists for inferred coding strand-originated mutations, suggesting that it arises from transcription-associated mutagenesis. Furthermore, the testis expression level of a gene robustly correlates with its overall expression in other organs, nullifying the need to explain the testis silencing of a minority of genes by adaptive germline mutagenesis. Taken together, our results demonstrate that human testis transcription increases the germline mutation rate, rejecting the transcriptional scanning hypothesis of extensive gene expressions in the mammalian testis.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  evolution; gene expression; mammals; mutation rate; natural selection

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32638015      PMCID: PMC7825000          DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msaa168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Biol Evol        ISSN: 0737-4038            Impact factor:   16.240


  42 in total

1.  Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sequence analysis reveals varying neutral substitution patterns in mammalian evolution.

Authors:  Dick G Hwang; Phil Green
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-08-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Misfolded proteins impose a dosage-dependent fitness cost and trigger a cytosolic unfolded protein response in yeast.

Authors:  Kerry A Geiler-Samerotte; Michael F Dion; Bogdan A Budnik; Stephanie M Wang; Daniel L Hartl; D Allan Drummond
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Chromatin dynamics during spermiogenesis.

Authors:  Christina Rathke; Willy M Baarends; Stephan Awe; Renate Renkawitz-Pohl
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2013-09-30

4.  Intrinsic protein disorder and interaction promiscuity are widely associated with dosage sensitivity.

Authors:  Tanya Vavouri; Jennifer I Semple; Rosa Garcia-Verdugo; Ben Lehner
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2009-07-10       Impact factor: 41.582

5.  Genomic evidence for elevated mutation rates in highly expressed genes.

Authors:  Chungoo Park; Wenfeng Qian; Jianzhi Zhang
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 6.  Understanding nucleosome dynamics and their links to gene expression and DNA replication.

Authors:  William K M Lai; B Franklin Pugh
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 94.444

7.  Genome-wide de novo risk score implicates promoter variation in autism spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Joon-Yong An; Kevin Lin; Lingxue Zhu; Donna M Werling; Shan Dong; Harrison Brand; Harold Z Wang; Xuefang Zhao; Grace B Schwartz; Ryan L Collins; Benjamin B Currall; Claudia Dastmalchi; Jeanselle Dea; Clif Duhn; Michael C Gilson; Lambertus Klei; Lindsay Liang; Eirene Markenscoff-Papadimitriou; Sirisha Pochareddy; Nadav Ahituv; Joseph D Buxbaum; Hilary Coon; Mark J Daly; Young Shin Kim; Gabor T Marth; Benjamin M Neale; Aaron R Quinlan; John L Rubenstein; Nenad Sestan; Matthew W State; A Jeremy Willsey; Michael E Talkowski; Bernie Devlin; Kathryn Roeder; Stephan J Sanders
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Human mutation rate associated with DNA replication timing.

Authors:  John A Stamatoyannopoulos; Ivan Adzhubei; Robert E Thurman; Gregory V Kryukov; Sergei M Mirkin; Shamil R Sunyaev
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2009-03-15       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  Differences between germline and somatic mutation rates in humans and mice.

Authors:  Brandon Milholland; Xiao Dong; Lei Zhang; Xiaoxiao Hao; Yousin Suh; Jan Vijg
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  Why are genes encoded on the lagging strand of the bacterial genome?

Authors:  Xiaoshu Chen; Jianzhi Zhang
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.416

View more
  4 in total

1.  Gene expression levels modulate germline mutation rates through the compound effects of transcription-coupled repair and damage.

Authors:  Bo Xia; Itai Yanai
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-09-05       Impact factor: 5.881

2.  Important genomic regions mutate less often than do other regions.

Authors:  Jianzhi Zhang
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 69.504

3.  Mitochondrial mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans show signatures of oxidative damage and an AT-bias.

Authors:  Gus Waneka; Joshua M Svendsen; Justin C Havird; Daniel B Sloan
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-10-02       Impact factor: 4.402

4.  Is the Mutation Rate Lower in Genomic Regions of Stronger Selective Constraints?

Authors:  Haoxuan Liu; Jianzhi Zhang
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 8.800

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.