Mammalian Genes and Evolutionary Genomics

  • Leo Goodstadt
  • Chris P. Ponting
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)


The availability of mammalian genome sequences is allowing differentiation between regions relatively disregarded by selection and those that have been subject to stronger selection and hence will probably be of the greatest biological interest. These selective pressures are most often purifying, so as to conserve genetic sequences whose maintenance is critical to the fitness of the individuals of a species. The identification of well-conserved regions, whether within protein-coding genes or inter-genic regulatory elements, such as promoters and enhancers, requires comparison of more distantly related vertebrates, such as human and fish or chicken, which display sufficient underlying sequence divergence for the conservation to be evident.


Adaptive Evolution Gene Duplication Event Posterior Bayesian Probability Nonsynonymous Site Neutral Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Waterston, R. H., Lindblad-Toh, K., Birney, E., et al. (2002) Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 420, 520–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibbs RA, Weinstock GM, Metzker ML, et al. (2004) Genome sequence of the Brown Norway rat yields insights into mammalian evolution. Nature 428, 493–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ohno, S. (1970) Evolution by Gene Duplication. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, J. A., Gu, Z., Clark, R. A., et al. (2002) Recent segmental duplications in the human genome. Science 297, 1003–1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitch, W.M. (1970) Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst. Zool. 19,99–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitch, W. M. (1995) Uses for evolutionary trees. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 349, 93–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ureta Vidal, A., Ettwiller, L., and Birney, E. (2003) Comparative genomics: genome-wide analysis in metazoan eukaryotes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 251–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clamp, M., Andrews, D., Barker, D., et al. (2003) Ensembl 2002: accommodating comparative genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 38–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tatusova, T. A. and Madden, T. L. (1999) BLAST 2 Sequences, a new tool for comparing protein and nucleotide sequences. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 174, 247–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang, Z. and Nielsen, R. (2000) Estimating synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution rates under realistic evolutionary models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 32–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Z. (1997) PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13, 555–556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardison, R. C., Roskin, K. M., Yang, S., et al. (2003) Covariation in frequencies of substitution, deletion, transposition, and recombination during eutherian evolution. Genome Res. 13, 13–26. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hurst, L. D. (2002) The Ka/Ks ratio: diagnosing the form of sequence evolution. Trends Genet. 18, 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, G. P. (1976) Evolution of repeated DNA sequences by unequal crossover. Science 191, 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lupas, A., Van Dyke, M., and Stock, J. (1991) Predicting coiled coils from protein sequences. Science 252, 1162–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wootton, J. C. and Federhen, S. (1993) Statistics of local complexity in amino acid sequences and sequence databases. Comput. Chem 17, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altschul, S. F., Madden, T. L., Schaffer, A. A., et al. (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G., and Gibson, T. J. (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4673–4680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fitch, W. M. and Margoliash, E. (1967) Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155, 279–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golding, G. B. and Dean, A. M. (1998) The structural basis of molecular adaptation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 355–369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anisimova, M., Bielawski, J. P., and Yang, Z. (2002) Evaluation of the Bayesian approach to detecting codon sites under positive Darwinian selection. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 950–958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Emes, R. D., Beatson, S. A., Ponting, C.P., and Goodstadt, L. (2004) Evolution and comparative genomics of odorant-and pheromone-associated genes in rodents. Genome Res. 14, 591–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Makalowski, W. and Boguski, M. S. (1998) Synonymous and nonsynonymous substitution distances are correlated in mouse and rat genes. J. Mol. Evol. 47, 119–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Casane, D., Boissinot, S., Chang, B. H., Shimmin, L. C., and Li, W. (1997) Mutation pattern variation among regions of the primate genome. J. Mol. Evol. 45, 216–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leo Goodstadt
    • 1
  • Chris P. Ponting
    • 1
  1. 1.MRC Functional Genetics Unit, University of Oxford, Department of Human Anatomy and GeneticsOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations