Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 84, Issue 5–6, pp 253–258 | Cite as

Complex Genes Are Preferentially Retained After Whole-Genome Duplication in Teleost Fish

  • Baocheng GuoEmail author
Letter to the Editor


Gene duplication generates new genetic material which, if retained after duplication, may contribute to organismal evolution. A whole-genome duplication occurred in the ancestry of teleost fish and consequently there are many duplicated genes in teleost genomes. Indeed, it has been proposed that the evolutionary diversification of teleost fish may have been stimulated by the fish-specific genome duplication (FSGD). However, it is not clear which factors determine which genes are retained as duplicate copies and which return to a singleton state after duplication. In the present study, gene complexity, in terms of encoded protein length and functional domain number, is compared between duplicate and singleton genes for nine well-annotated teleost genomes. A total of 933 gene families with retained duplicates and 4590 singleton gene families are analysed. Genes with retained duplicates are found to be significantly longer (27.9–38.2%) and to have more functional domains (20.5–26.5%) than singleton genes in all the nine teleost genomes, suggesting that genes encoded longer proteins with and more functional domains were preferentially retained after whole-genome duplication in teleosts. This differential retention of duplicated genes will have increased the genomic complexity of teleost fish after FSGD which, together with differential duplicated gene retention as a lineage-splitting force, may have greatly contributed to the successful diversification of teleost fish.


Duplicated gene Singleton gene Protein length Domain number 



This work was supported by CAS Pioneer Hundred Talents Program and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31672273). I thank Prof. Peter Holland from University of Oxford for useful discussions and language revision.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

239_2017_9794_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 1092 kb)


  1. Amores A, Force A, Yan YL, Joly L, Amemiya C, Fritz A, Ho RK, Langeland J, Prince V, Wang YL, Westerfield M, Ekker M, Postlethwait JH (1998) Zebrafish hox clusters and vertebrate genome evolution. Science 282:1711–1714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chain FJJ, Dushoff J, Evans BJ (2011) The odds of duplicate gene persistence after polyploidization. BMC Genom 12:599. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-599
  3. Clarke JT, Lloyd GT, Friedman M (2016) Little evidence for enhanced phenotypic evolution in early teleosts relative to their living fossil sister group. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:11531–11536CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Guo B, Wagner A, He S (2011) Duplicated gene evolution following whole-genome duplication in teleost Fish. In: Friedberg F (ed) Gene duplication. InTech, Rijeka, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  5. Guo B, Zou M, Wagner A (2012) Pervasive indels and their evolutionary dynamics after the fish-specific genome duplication. Mol Biol Evol 29:3005–3022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. He X, Zhang J (2005) Gene complexity and gene duplicability. Curr Biol 15:1016–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Inoue J, Sato Y, Sinclair R, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2015) Rapid genome reshaping by multiple-gene loss after whole-genome duplication in teleost fish suggested by mathematical modeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:14918–14923CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Kasprzyk A (2011) BioMart: driving a paradigm change in biological data management. Database J Biol Databases Curation 2011:bar049. doi: 10.1093/database/bar049
  9. Lynch M, Conery JS (2000) The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290:1151–1155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Macqueen DJ, Johnston IA (2014) A well-constrained estimate for the timing of the salmonid whole genome duplication reveals major decoupling from species diversification. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 281:20132881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin KJ, Holland PWH (2014) Enigmatic orthology relationships between hox clusters of the African butterfly fish and other teleosts following ancient whole-genome duplication. Mol Biol Evol 31:2592–2611CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin KJ, Holland PW (2017) Diversification of hox gene clusters in osteoglossomorph fish in comparison to other teleosts and the spotted gar outgroup. J Exp Zool B: Mol Dev Evol. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.22726 Google Scholar
  13. Ohno S (1970) Evolution by gene duplication. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Semon M, Wolfe KH (2007) Reciprocal gene loss between Tetraodon and zebrafish after whole genome duplication in their ancestor. Trends Genet 23:108–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Stephens SG (1951) Possible significance of duplication in evolution. Adv Genet Inc Mol Genet Med 4:247–265Google Scholar
  16. Taylor JS, Braasch I, Frickey T, Meyer A, Van de Peer Y (2003) Genome duplication, a trait shared by 22000 species of ray-finned fish. Genome Res 13:382–390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang J, Lusk R, Li WH (2003) Organismal complexity, protein complexity, and gene duplicability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:15661–15665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhang J (2003) Evolution by gene duplication: an update. Trends Ecol Evol 18:292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations