No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.
The life cycle of Drosophila orphan genes
Nicola Palmieri, Carolin Kosiol, Christian Schlötterer
eLife · 2014 · CC BY
doi:10.7554/elife.01311 (opens in a new tab)
Abstract
Orphans are genes restricted to a single phylogenetic lineage and emerge at high rates. While this predicts an accumulation of genes, the gene number has remained remarkably constant through evolution. This paradox has not yet been resolved. Because orphan genes have been mainly analyzed over long evolutionary time scales, orphan loss has remained unexplored. Here we study the patterns of orphan turnover among close relatives in the Drosophila obscura group. We show that orphans are not only emerging at a high rate, but that they are also rapidly lost. Interestingly, recently emerged orphans are more likely to be lost than older ones. Furthermore, highly expressed orphans with a strong male-bias are more likely to be retained. Since both lost and retained orphans show similar evolutionary signatures of functional conservation, we propose that orphan loss is not driven by high rates of sequence evolution, but reflects lineage-specific functional requirements.
Full text
From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.
Introduction
Orphans are genes with limited phylogenetic distribution and represent a considerable fraction (up to 30%) of the gene catalog in all sequenced genomes. Studies conducted in different eukaryotes showed that orphans emerge at high rates. While gene duplication and exaptation from transposable elements often result in orphan genes, they also originate frequently de novo from non-coding DNA, probably through intermediate proto-genes. Compared to evolutionary conserved genes, orphans are overall shorter, fast evolving, have lower and more tissue-restricted expression. Moreover, they often show testis-biased expression, probably due to frequent origination in testis.
In Drosophila the rate of orphan emergence is particulary high and many orphans become quickly essential. Although the function of only a few orphan genes has been studied, it has been proposed that orphans might serve an important role in speciation and adaptation to different environments. The high rate of orphan origination would predict an increase in gene content over time. However, gene content in eukaryotes is remarkably stable compared to genome size, as highlighted by. To solve this paradox Tautz and Domazet-Loso proposed that orphans have only a short lifetime (‘rapid-turnover’ hypothesis). Thus, although orphans are continuously created, most of them might be lost in a relatively short evolutionary time. Relaxed selective costraints in orphans might also contribute to the high rate of orphan loss.
Moreover, since orphans are typically identifed by the comparison of distantly related species, their evolutionary stability has been so far neglected. This contrasts the comprehensive analysis of evolutionary patterns of gains and losses of non-orphan genes. In this study, several partially interrelated factors affect gene loss, including gene expression levels, number of protein–protein interactions, gene dispensability, and rate of sequence evolution.
This study focuses for the first time on the evolutionary stability of orphan genes. We investigate the factors contributing to orphan loss and find that orphan age, male-biased gene expression, and microsatellite content are correlated with orphan stability. Surprisingly, differences in evolutionary rates cannot explain orphan loss and we propose that orphan loss is driven by lineage-specific evolutionary constraints. Overall, orphan genes are lost at a significantly higher rate than non-orphan genes, supporting the ‘rapid-turnover’ hypothesis.
Results
Orphans are commonly detected by BLASTing the genes of a given organism against a set of outgroup species. A BLASTP cutoff of 10−3–10−4 was found to be optimal to maximize sensitivity and specificity in Drosophila. To identify orphans we used a BLASTP cutoff of 10−4 combined with a TBLASTN cutoff of 10−4, to exclude genes with unannotated orthologs in other species. Following these criteria, we searched in Drosophila pseudoobscura for genes with no sequence conservation in 10 Drosophila species outside the Drosophila obscura group (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). In total, we identified 1152 orphans, corresponding to 7% of all the D. pseudoobscura genes. Our estimate is slightly lower than a previous one, due to our different filtering procedure, but still consistent with a high rate of orphan gain in Drosophila. Our data clearly indicate that orphan genes are subject to purifying selection, as they show several hallmarks of functional protein-coding sequences (Figures 1, 2). A comparison of orphan genes preserved between D. pseudoobscura and D. affinis resulted in a distribution of dN/dS significantly lower than 1 with a median of 0.44 (Figure 1—figure supplement 1, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p<1.0 × 10−15), as expected for protein-coding sequences. Moreover, dN/dS for orphans is significantly lower (Mann–Whitney test, p=2.7 × 10−14) than dN/dS calculated on a random set of intergenic regions with the same length distribution of orphans (see ‘Materials and methods’, section ‘Evolutionary rates’) (Figure 1A). Consistent with this, we also found orphans to be more conserved than intergenic regions (Figure 1B, Figure 1—figure supplement 2). The codon usage bias of orphans is intermediate to that of old genes and intergenic regions (Figure 1C).
To further test for purifying selection acting on orphans, we used a polymorphism dataset of 45 strains being re-sequenced for the third chromosome of D. pseudoobscura (‘Materials and methods’). We calculated the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous polymorphism (pN/pS), since it provides an indication of purifying selection. We found that pN/pS for orphans is significantly lower compared to intergenic regions (Mann–Whitney test, p=0.02182) (Figure 2), and significantly greater for old genes (Mann–Whitney test, p<1.0 × 10−15), consistent with purifying selection operating on orphans.
In agreement with studies in other species, we also find that orphan genes are shorter (median length for orphans = 344 bp, median length for old genes = 1470 bp), have a lower GC content (median GC content for orphans = 0.54, median GC content for old genes = 0.55), are expressed at lower levels (expression in D. pseudoobscura males: mean expression for orphans = 29 FPKM, mean expression for old genes = 41 FPKM) than old genes (Figure 3). Using CD-Hit, we found the fraction of genes with a paralog (>90% protein similarity) to be similar for orphans (6.9%) and old genes (6.4%). Orphans are more enriched in microsatellites, also consistent with previous findings in vertebrates and rice. Furthermore, unlike mammals, none of the D. pseudoobscura orphans was found to be associated with transposable elements (see ‘Transposons detection’).
The distribution of orphans is heterogeneous across chromosomes (χ2-test, p<1.0 × 10−15), with the X chromosome having the highest fraction of orphans. In the obscura group, the two X-chromosome arms have a different evolutionary history. XL corresponds to Muller’s element A and is homologous to the X chromosome in D. melanogaster. XR, however, has been recently derived from an autosome (Muller’s element D, 3L in D. melanogaster). Analyzing the old-X and neo-X chromosomes separately, we observed a striking difference in the number of orphans despite similar chromosome sizes, with the old-X responsible for the excess of X-linked orphan genes, and the neo-X showing a similar number of orphans as the autosomes (Figure 4). For each chromosomal arm, we computed genomic features in 100 kb windows to correlate them with the difference in orphan content between old-X and neo-X. We found that average GC content, microsatellite density, transposon density, and length of intergenic regions differ between the two chromosomal arms (Figure 5).
We hypothesized that this pronounced difference between the two chromosome arms might reflect a different history of X-linkage. If orphan genes emerge at a higher rate on the X-chromosome, the shorter history of X-linkage on the neo-X could explain the paucity of orphans on the neo-X compared to old-X. In this case, the difference in orphan number between old-X and neo-X chromosomes should date back to the time before the origin of the neo-X, with a similar number of orphans originating after the creation of the neo-X. We therefore used the genomic sequences of five members of the D. obscura group (D. pseudoobscura, D. miranda, and the de novo assembled D. persimilis, D. lowei, and D. affinis) to date the origin of the orphan genes to different ancestral nodes in the phylogenetic tree of these species. We distinguished five groups of genes: old genes (non orphans) and four different orphan age classes (Figure 6). Surprisingly, we observed a consistent paucity of orphans on XR relative to XL across all age classes (Figure 7). This persistent difference in orphan number between XL and XR in all age classes suggests that X-linkage is not sufficient to explain the enrichment of orphans on XL. We conclude that the former autosome differs from the ancestral X chromosomal arm by a yet unidentified feature that affects the emergence of new orphans.
The analysis of orphans that have putatively lost their function via the acquisition of a stop codon or a frame shift causing insertion/deletion (pseudogenized/lost orphans) reveals another interesting feature of the XL–XR fusion. The oldest orphans in our dataset (age class 4) show a pronounced excess of pseudogenized orphans on XR in D. affinis and D. miranda (Figure 8A). This trend was not observed for orphans that emerged on XR after the XL–XR fusion (Figure 8B,C), nor for old genes (Figure 8D) and is not due to an increased rate of orphan gain on XR (Figure 9). Since the oldest orphans (age class 4) on XR are a mixture of autosomal (i.e., before the fusion) and sex-chromosomal (i.e., after the fusion) orphans, we speculate that the high rate of pseudogenization of orphans on the XR may reflect the new X-linkage of previously autosomal orphans. A previous study found that the XR chromosome has experienced a burst of gene duplications to autosomes after its creation. It is plausible that after the conversion of the XR from autosome to sex-chromosome, orphans might have been duplicated to autosomes, whereas the XR ancestral copy would have become pseudogenized. To test this hypothesis, we looked for evidence of gene duplications for the orphans lost on the XR at node 4 (Figure 6). We aligned the sequences of these genes in D. lowei and D. miranda to the respective genomes using BLASTN (cutoff 10−5). Upon manual inspection of the alignments, we found that only 1 out of 21 genes in D. miranda (gene ID: GA23486) and 1 out of 14 genes in D. lowei (gene ID: GA23807) had a second hit on an autosome covering at least 50% of the length of the query gene. Other genes either produced a single best hit on the XR chromosome or spurious short hits on other chromosomes (data not shown). Thus, we conclude that duplication of orphans cannot explain the excess of pseudogenized orphans on XR. Nevertheless, our analysis clearly indicates that the emergence of the neo-X chromosome influenced the orphan dynamics on XR, affecting rates of both gain and loss, thus we excluded this chromosome arm for our analyses of the rate of orphan turnover.
For each age class, we determined the number of pseudogenized orphans. In the D. persimilis lineage, orphan pseudogenization can be studied for three different age classes. If orphans of all age classes were functionally equivalent, no difference in the rate of orphan pseudogenization would be expected. We observe, however, that the fraction of orphan pseudogenes decreases with age (Figure 10). The D. miranda lineage also shows a higher loss of young orphan genes. The relatively small number of observations, however, precludes statistical testing of this trend. Overall, orphan genes are lost significantly more often than old genes (Fisher’s exact test, p=3.3 × 10−8), consistent with the rapid turnover hypothesis. The unequal conservation of orphans of different age classes is also apparent after normalizing by coding sequence length (Figure 11), to account for the fact that longer coding sequences (CDS) have a greater chance of acquiring ORF-disrupting mutations. When looking at the distribution of premature termination codons (PTC) along the open reading frame (ORF) of all genes, we observed that PTCs are enriched at the beginning and at the end of the ORF (Figure 12), consistent with previous results in D. melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura. Since ORF-disrupting mutations occuring at the end of the ORF might have little impact on gene function, we redefined pseudogenes by considering only ORF-disrupting mutations localized in the first half of the ORF and confirmed that orphans of age class 3 are lost more often than those of age class 4 (Figure 13). Age class 2 was intermediate, most likely not reflecting a biological phenomenon, but due to a high sampling variance associated with the small number of observations (9 orphans). Finally, the pattern is also robust to a more conservative criterion for ortholog assignment (see ‘Annotation of the obscura species’, Figure 14).
To determine features associated with the differences in disabling mutations among orphans from different age classes, we contrasted orphans lost in D. lowei and/or D. persimilis (lost orphans) vs orphans conserved in all the obscura species (conserved orphans). Genes in both classes evolve at the same rate, are of similar length, and have similar codon usage bias (Figure 15A–E). Conserved orphans have a higher GC content, contain fewer microsatellites, are expressed at a higher level and are more male-biased (Figure 15B,D–F,G,H) compared to lost orphans. Conserved orphans tend to increase their expression level as they become older (Figure 16A), whereas the opposite pattern is true for lost orphans (Figure 16B).
Orphan genes are frequently expressed in the testis and have a male-biased gene expression pattern. This pattern could be generated by pervasive gene expression in testis, which facilitates the functional recruitment of non-specific expression. Another explanation is that expression in testis does not require a complex architecture of regulatory modules, so that fewer substitutions are required to obtain a functional regulatory module for expressing a novel gene in testis compared to other tissues. We scrutinized these explanations by comparing the fraction of male-biased genes among orphan genes from different age classes. Unexpectedly, the fraction of male-biased genes increases with the age of the orphan genes (Figure 17). This increase of male-biased orphans among the older age classes is the result of a preferential loss of orphans with an unbiased gene expression (Figure 18). To confirm that male-biased gene expression is associated with orphan retention rather than emergence, we analyzed the sex-bias in D. miranda for orphans with and without an open reading frame. Consistent with the gene expression pattern in D. pseudoobscura, we found that lost orphans have a significantly lower male-bias in D. miranda (Figure 19). We conclude that the previously reported male-biased gene expression of orphan genes is not the result of a preferential recruitment of male-biased transcripts, nor do orphans gradually acquire male-biased gene expression. Rather, male-biased orphans are more likely to be retained.
Discussion
Our study provides the missing link to understand orphan dynamics. Until now, orphan evolution was primarily studied on long phylogenetic branches. Although this approach is well suited to discover new orphans, it does not allow tracing the evolution of orphans. Previous studies showed a high rate of orphan gain, which is not reflected in an increase in gene number. To resolve this apparent paradox, it has been postulated that orphans must be lost at a high rate as well. In this study, we used the framework of closely related species in the obscura group to study the patterns of orphan gain and losses. We show that orphans not only emerge at high rates, but that they are also rapidly lost (Figure 10). Interestingly, most losses (∼76%) were due to disabling mutations rather than deletions of the orphan gene. Although under equilibrium conditions the number of losses balances the number of orphan gains, here, we observed a surplus of orphan gains (Figure 6). We caution that this discrepancy probably does not imply an increase of gene number, but rather reflects the limited evolutionary time to acquire mutations. Using a rather conservative criterion for disabling mutations, either premature stop codons or frameshift indels, we have probably not identified all orphans that have lost their function. Furthermore, we do not account for the possibility of loss of function due to changes in gene regulation.
Importantly, codon usage bias, dN/dS values and sequence conservation clearly suggest that orphan genes are functionally constrained and these constraints do not differ among orphans that are conserved in the obscura group and those that lost function in at least one species of the group. Hence, it may be possible that orphan loss is stochastic and reflects weak purifying selection. Nevertheless, lost orphans differ in some aspects from conserved ones. Orphans that are lost contain more microsatellite stretches and have a lower, less sex-biased gene expression than retained ones. Furthermore, we also found that the rate of orphan loss decreases with orphan age, a result consistent with orphans serving a functional role only temporarily. Previous work suggested that orphans are important for adaptation to novel environments, but it is also possible that orphans contribute to stabilize new connections in gene networks and become obsolete once such new connections have been optimized. Our data suggest that orphans become quickly functional, which is reflected in their codon usage bias, dN/dS ratio and sequence conservation.
The chromosomal translocation resulting in the neo-X chromosome provides another interesting perspective on the evolution of orphan genes. Despite the fact that the neo-X is now fully dosage compensated, and has obtained a similar base composition as the XL, we noted that the translocation resulted in a preferential loss of orphan genes on the neo-X. Since this pattern is restricted to orphans that most likely originated before the chromosomal fusion, we argue that the change in chromosomal environment has affected the function of orphan genes, most likely via expression differences. We speculate that the selective advantage conferred by these orphans has diminished, which resulted in a higher loss rate. Interestingly, the elevated rate of orphan loss after the neo-X formation seems to be still ongoing. This differential loss of orphan genes point in a similar direction as the observation that the gene composition of the neo-X has been altered by gene duplication. Hence, both (orphan) gene loss and duplication contribute to fast gene content remodeling on a newly formed sex chromosome in Drosophila.
Species data collection
An individual species sample of D. affinis (stock number 140120141.02) was ordered from the Drosophila Species Stock Center (https://stockcenter.ucsd.edu/info/welcome.php) and sequenced on the Illumina GAIIx following the paired-end library preparation protocol (version Illumina 1.7) in two runs (run 1: read length = 101 bp, insert size = 230 bp; run 2: read length = 101 bp, insert size = 550 bp). Short genomic reads for D. lowei (accessions SRX091466 and SRX091467) and D. persimilis (accession SRX091471) were downloaded from the Sequence Read Archive (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra). The genome of D. miranda was downloaded from NCBI (GenBank Assembly ID GCA_000269505.1). The genome of D. pseudoobscura was downloaded from FlyBase (release 2.23).
Assembly of the obscura species
Reads for D. affinis, D. lowei, and D. persimilis were trimmed using the Perl script trim_fastq.pl (parameters –quality-threshold 20 −−min-length 40) from PoPoolation. For each species, a de novo assembly (parameters: min-contig-length 200) was performed using CLC Genomics Workbench 4.6 (http://www.clcbio.com/products/clc-genomics-workbench/), followed by scaffolding with nucmer (parameters: –c 30 –g 1000 –b 1000 –l 15) against the D. pseudoobscura genome. Average coverage per assembled genome was calculated by realigning the reads against the contigs of the respective species with Bowtie 2.1.0 (parameters: --very-fast) and selecting only reads with mapping quality >20.
Annotation of the obscura species
The annotation of D. affinis, D. lowei, D. miranda, and D. persimilis is based on orthology to D. pseudoobscura using Exonerate 2.2.0 (parameters: -model protein2genome–bestn 1 -showtargetgff), by aligning the longest isoform of D. pseudoobscura proteins extracted from a recent re-annotation of D. pseudoobscura to the genomes of D. affinis, D. lowei, D. miranda, and D. persimilis. For each gene, the best unambiguous hit was retained. To remove non-informative hits, we also required a minimum fraction of the gene to be recovered. Since the sequence conservation of orthologs decreases with divergence time, the expected length of the ortholog depends strongly on the phylogenetic distance between query and subject sequence. To apply consistent criteria for all species, we empirically determined the expected fraction of a gene with sequence homology. Based on genes that are conserved between D. pseudoobscura and the 10 Drosophila species outside the obscura clade (old genes) (Figure 6—figure supplement 1), we determined the distribution of the fraction of the genes that could be aligned. As cutoff the value we used the 5th percentile of the distribution of aligned protein length of old genes. This resulted in a threshold of 47% for D. affinis, 52% for D. lowei, 59% for D. miranda and 53% for D. persimilis. Hence, only orphan orthologs that showed a fraction of aligned coding sequence higher than the empirically determined cutoffs were retained. In addition to this ortholog set, we generated an alternative, more conservative ortholog set. For this one, at least one of the flanking genes of D. pseudoobscura was required to be in synteny with the respective orthologs in D. affinis, D. miranda and D. persimilis. D. lowei was not considered in the synteny analysis since most of the genes in this species are flanked by genomic gaps, due to the shorter contig length of the D. lowei assembly (Table 1), which caused many contigs to contain only a single gene (Table 2), thus precluding proper synteny assignments. Assembly and annotation of all the species are available at http://popoolation.at/affinis_genome, http://popoolation.at/lowei_genome, http://popoolation.at/miranda_genome and http://popoolation.at/persimilis_genome. Detailed annotation statistics for each gene are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hq564.
Detection of orphan genes
D. pseudoobscura proteins corresponding to the longest isoform for each gene were aligned using BLASTP (E < 10−4) and TBLASTN (E < 10−4) against the published proteomes and genomes of 10 Drosophila species outside the obscura group (D. melanogaster, D. simulans, D. sechellia, D. erecta, D. yakuba, D. ananassae, D. willistoni, D. mojavensis, D. virilis, D. grimshawi). Genes without BLAST hits and without annotated orthologs in FlyBase (gene orthologs release 09-2011) were classified as orphans.
Polymorphism analysis
Illumina reads for 45 D. pseudoobscura strains were downloaded from NCBI (Sequence Read Archive, accession SRP017196). Reads were trimmed using PoPoolation and a total of 3.5 million reads was randomly extracted for each strain and combined into a single FASTQ file. The combined reads were treated as a Pool-Seq dataset and mapped to the FlyBase D. pseudoobscura genome release 2.23 with BWA (parameters -o 1 -n 0.01 -l 200 -e 12 -d 12) on a hadoop cluster using DistMap. From the resulting BAM file, PCR duplicates were removed with Picard (http://picard.sourceforge.net) using the tool MarkDuplicates.jar (parameters REMOVE_DUPLICATES = true, VALIDATION_STRINGENCY = SILENT). Proper-pairs with mapping quality >20 were extracted with samtools (version 0.1.18). Indels were detected with PoPoolation using the script identify-genomic-indel-regions.pl (parameters--min-count 2 --indel-window 5) and masked from the reference genome prior to SNP calling. Coverage was subsampled to 50X for all the chromosomes. Only SNPs on the 3rd chromosome were considered in all analyses, since a balancer chromosome was used to extract the 3rd chromosome, precluding an unbiased polymorphism analysis for the remaining chromosomes. SNPs were called with the PoPoolation script Variance-sliding.pl (parameters--min-coverage 10 --min-count 2 --max-coverage 500 --min-qual 20 --window-size 500 --step-size 500 --fastq-type sanger--pool-size 45).
Calculation of orphan gains and losses
Orphan gains and losses (pseudogenizations) were inferred by Dollo parsimony. Based on the phylogenetic tree of Figure 6, a gene was assigned as gained at a given node if an intact ortholog was present in both external branches of the subtree corresponding to that node. For example, a gene having an intact ORF in D. lowei but not in D. affinis was classified as gained at node 3 (Figure 6). A gene was considered to be lost at a terminal branch if at least one ORF-disrupting mutation (frameshift/premature stop codon) was present in the gene at that branch and two intact ORFs were detected at both external leaves. The relatively high coverage of our assemblies (Table 1) makes unlikely that disrupting mutations are sequencing errors. In D. affinis for instance, only 8 genes had an average coverage lower than 20x.
A gene was considered as completely deleted in a species if no ortholog was detected in that species and no BLASTP (E < 10−4) or TBLASTN (E < 10−4) hit was found. Deletions were not considered into analyses of gene turnover, since they cannot be distinguished from missing annotations.
Expression analysis
Four RNA-Seq datasets of D. pseudoobscura males and females (strains ps94 and ps88 from the ArrayExpress database—accession E-MTAB-1424), together with two RNA-Seq samples of D. miranda males and females from the Sequence Read Archive (accessions SRX106024, SRX106025), were used for expression analysis. For each sample, reads were trimmed using PoPoolation and aligned to the genome of the respective species with GSNAP version 2012-07-12 (parameters: –N 1). Only proper pairs mapping unambiguously to one position were retained. Expression in FPKM was calculated with Cufflinks version 1.2.1 (parameters: -F 0.10 –j 0.15 –I 300000). For D. pseudoobscura sex-bias was calculated using the package DESeq, treating the strains as two biological replicates for each sex and applying an FDR = 0.1. Differential expression between D. miranda males and females was calculated for both species using the log2 fold change on the normalized expression counts using the normalization protocol implemented in the R package DESeq version 1.10.1.
Codon usage bias
Codon usage bias was calculated using the R package seqinr (function cai) based on the D. pseudoobscura codon usage table downloaded from http://www.kazusa.or.jp/codon/cgi-bin/showcodon.cgi?species=7237.
Evolutionary rates
Coding sequences of D. pseudoobscura and D. miranda orthologs without frameshifts/stop codons were aligned using PRANK (parameters: –codon). To test for purifying selection on orphans, dN/dS was compared between orphans and a set of randomly selected intergenic regions. This set was generated as follows: (1) we identified the intergenic regions from the D. pseudoobscura annotation from, (2) for each CDS belonging to an orphan gene we extracted all the intergenic regions longer than that CDS, (3) we randomly selected one intergenic region and we extracted from that a random subregion with the same length of a given orphan CDS, (4) this procedure was repeated for all orphan CDS, resulting in a set of intergenic regions with the same length distribution as orphan CDSs. These regions were aligned with BLASTN (cutoff 10−5) to the D. affinis genome and for each region the best hit was kept and realigned with PRANK (default parameters) to the D. pseudoobscura query sequence. Each alignment was truncated at the 5’end to get an alignment length, which is a multiple of 3. Internal stop codons were replaced by Ns. The ratio of the rates of nonsynonymous and synonymous substitutions per gene (dN/dS) was measured using Markov models of codon evolution and maximum likelihood methods implemented in PAML.
Comparison of genomic features among old-X, neo-X, and autosomes
To shed light on the differences in orphan number between XL and XR, different features were compared among old-X, neo-X, and autosomes in D. pseudoobscura (unassembled contigs were not considered in this analysis): (A) GC content was calculated with the R package seqinr for 100 kb sliding windows along each chromosome (B) microsatellite density was calculated using SciRoKo 3.4 (parameters: -mode mmfp–l 15 –r 3 –s 15 –p 5 –seedl 8 –seedr 3 –mmao 3) for 100 kb sliding windows along each chromosome; (C) transposon density was estimated with RepeatMasker 3.2.9 (parameters: –q–gff -nolow–norna–species drosophila) for 100 kb sliding windows along each chromosome; (D) length of intergenic regions were calculated using BEDTools (-complement) by interval subtraction between genome and gene coordinates; (E) recombination rates for different windows were taken from.
Microsatellite detection
Microsatellites were detected on the transcript sequences of the longest isoform for each D. pseudoobscura gene using the tool SciRoKo 3.4 (parameters: -mode mmfp–l 15 –r 3 –s 15 –p 5 –seedl 8 –seedr 3 –mmao 3).
Transposons detection
Genomic annotation of transposons was performed in D. pseudoobscura using RepeatMasker 3.2.9 (parameters: –q–gff -nolow–norna–species drosophila). Only transposons longer than 50 bp and not overlapping with microsatellites (see ‘Microsatellite detection’) were retained. We required for an orphan to contain a full transposon sequence in one of its exons in order to classify it as associated with a transposon.
References 63
- 1.
Abraham I Lucchesi JC 1974 Dosage compensation of genes on the left and right arms of the X chromosome of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila willistoni. Genetics78:1119–1126
Not in our library10.1093/genetics/78.4.1119 (opens in a new tab)
- 2.
- 3.
Beckenbach AT Wei YW Liu H 1993 Relationships in the Drosophila obscura species group, inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase II sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution10:619–634
Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040034 (opens in a new tab)
- 4.
Begun DJ Lindfors HA Kern AD Jones CD 2007 Evidence for de novo evolution of testis-expressed genes in the Drosophila yakuba/Drosophila erecta clade. Genetics176:1131–1137.
Not in our library10.1534/genetics.106.069245 (opens in a new tab)
- 5.
Cai J Zhao R Jiang H Wang W 2008 De novo origination of a new protein-coding gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics179:487–496.
Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.084491 (opens in a new tab)
- 6.
Cai JJ Petrov DA 2010 Relaxed purifying selection and possibly high rate of adaptation in primate lineage-specific genes. Genome Biology and Evolution2:393–409.
Not in our library10.1093/gbe/evq019 (opens in a new tab)
- 7.
Capra JA Pollard KS Singh M 2010 Novel genes exhibit distinct patterns of function acquisition and network integration. Genome Biology11:R127.
Not in our library10.1186/gb-2010-11-12-r127 (opens in a new tab)
- 8.
Carvunis AR Rolland T Wapinski I Calderwood MA Yildirim MA Simonis N Charloteaux B Hidalgo CA Barbette J Santhanam B Brar GA Weissman JS Regev A Thierry-Mieg N Cusick ME Vidal M 2012 Proto-genes and de novo gene birth. Nature487:370–374.
Not in our library10.1038/nature11184 (opens in a new tab)
- 9.
Chen S Zhang YE Long M 2010 New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. Science330:1682–1685.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1196380 (opens in a new tab)
- 10.
Clark AG Eisen MB Smith DR Bergman CM Oliver B Markow TA Kaufman TC Kellis M Gelbart W Iyer VN Pollard DA Sackton TB Larracuente AM Singh ND Abad JP Abt DN Adryan B Aguade M Akashi H Anderson WW Aquadro CF Ardell DH Arguello R Artieri CG Barbash DA Barker D Barsanti P Batterham P Batzoglou S Begun D Bhutkar A Blanco E Bosak SA Bradley RK Brand AD Brent MR Brooks AN Brown RH Butlin RK Caggese C Calvi BR Bernardo de Carvalho A Caspi A Castrezana S Celniker SE Chang JL Chapple C Chatterji S Chinwalla A Civetta A Clifton SW Comeron JM Costello JC Coyne JA Daub J David RG Delcher AL Delehaunty K Do CB Ebling H Edwards K Eickbush T Evans JD Filipski A Findeiss S Freyhult E Fulton L Fulton R Garcia AC Gardiner A Garfield DA Garvin BE Gibson G Gilbert D Gnerre S Godfrey J Good R Gotea V Gravely B Greenberg AJ Griffiths-Jones S Gross S Guigo R Gustafson EA Haerty W Hahn MW Halligan DL Halpern AL Halter GM Han MV Heger A Hillier L Hinrichs AS Holmes I Hoskins RA Hubisz MJ Hultmark D Huntley MA Jaffe DB Jagadeeshan S Jeck WR Johnson J Jones CD Jordan WC Karpen GH Kataoka E Keightley PD Kheradpour P Kirkness EF Koerich LB Kristiansen K Kudrna D Kulathinal RJ Kumar S Kwok R Lander E Langley CH Lapoint R Lazzaro BP Lee SJ Levesque L Li R Lin CF Lin MF Lindblad-Toh K Llopart A Long M Low L Lozovsky E Lu J Luo M Machado CA Makalowski W Marzo M Matsuda M Matzkin L McAllister B McBride CS McKernan B McKernan K Mendez-Lago M Minx P Mollenhauer MU Montooth K Mount SM Mu X Myers E Negre B Newfeld S Nielsen R Noor MA O’Grady P Pachter L Papaceit M Parisi MJ Parisi M Parts L Pedersen JS Pesole G Phillippy AM Ponting CP Pop M Porcelli D Powell JR Prohaska S Pruitt K Puig M Quesneville H Ram KR Rand D Rasmussen MD Reed LK Reenan R Reily A Remington KA Rieger TT Ritchie MG Robin C Rogers YH Rohde C Rozas J Rubenfield MJ Ruiz A Russo S Salzberg SL Sanchez-Gracia A Saranga DJ Sato H Schaeffer SW Schatz MC Schlenke T Schwartz R Segarra C Singh RS Sirot L Sirota M Sisneros NB Smith CD Smith TF Spieth J Stage DE Stark A Stephan W Strausberg RL Strempel S Sturgill D Sutton G Sutton GG Tao W Teichmann S Tobari YN Tomimura Y Tsolas JM Valente VL Venter E Venter JC Vicario S Vieira FG Vilella AJ Villasante A Walenz B Wang J Wasserman M Watts T Wilson D Wilson RK Wing RA Wolfner MF Wong A Wong GK Wu CI Wu G Yamamoto D Yang HP Yang SP Yorke JA Yoshida K Zdobnov E Zhang P Zhang Y Zimin AV Baldwin J Abdouelleil A Abdulkadir J Abebe A Abera B Abreu J Acer SC Aftuck L Alexander A An P Anderson E Anderson S Arachi H Azer M Bachantsang P Barry A Bayul T Berlin A Bessette D Bloom T Blye J Boguslavskiy L Bonnet C Boukhgalter B Bourzgui I Brown A Cahill P Channer S Cheshatsang Y Chuda L Citroen M Collymore A Cooke P Costello M D’Aco K Daza R De Haan G DeGray S DeMaso C Dhargay N Dooley K Dooley E Doricent M Dorje P Dorjee K Dupes A Elong R Falk J Farina A Faro S Ferguson D Fisher S Foley CD Franke A Friedrich D Gadbois L Gearin G Gearin CR Giannoukos G Goode T Graham J Grandbois E Grewal S Gyaltsen K Hafez N Hagos B Hall J Henson C Hollinger A Honan T Huard MD Hughes L Hurhula B Husby ME Kamat A Kanga B Kashin S Khazanovich D Kisner P Lance K Lara M Lee W Lennon N Letendre F LeVine R Lipovsky A Liu X Liu J Liu S Lokyitsang T Lokyitsang Y Lubonja R Lui A MacDonald P Magnisalis V Maru K Matthews C McCusker W McDonough S Mehta T Meldrim J Meneus L Mihai O Mihalev A Mihova T Mittelman R Mlenga V Montmayeur A Mulrain L Navidi A Naylor J Negash T Nguyen T Nguyen N Nicol R Norbu C Norbu N Novod N O’Neill B Osman S Markiewicz E Oyono OL Patti C Phunkhang P Pierre F Priest M Raghuraman S Rege F Reyes R Rise C Rogov P Ross K Ryan E Settipalli S Shea T Sherpa N Shi L Shih D Sparrow T Spaulding J Stalker J Stange-Thomann N Stavropoulos S Stone C Strader C Tesfaye S Thomson T Thoulutsang Y Thoulutsang D Topham K Topping I Tsamla T Vassiliev H Vo A Wangchuk T Wangdi T Weiand M Wilkinson J Wilson A Yadav S Young G Yu Q Zembek L Zhong D Zimmer A Zwirko Z Jaffe DB Alvarez P Brockman W But
Not in our library10.1038/nature06341 (opens in a new tab)
- 11.
Colbourne JK Pfrender ME Gilbert D Thomas WK Tucker A Oakley TH Tokishita S Aerts A Arnold GJ Basu MK Bauer DJ Cáceres CE Carmel L Casola C Choi JH Detter JC Dong Q Dusheyko S Eads BD Fröhlich T Geiler-Samerotte KA Gerlach D Hatcher P Jogdeo S Krijgsveld J Kriventseva EV Kültz D Laforsch C Lindquist E Lopez J Manak JR Muller J Pangilinan J Patwardhan RP Pitluck S Pritham EJ Rechtsteiner A Rho M Rogozin IB Sakarya O Salamov A Schaack S Shapiro H Shiga Y Skalitzky C Smith Z Souvorov A Sung W Tang Z Tsuchiya D Tu H Vos H Wang M Wolf YI Yamagata H Yamada T Ye Y Shaw JR Andrews J Crease TJ Tang H Lucas SM Robertson HM Bork P Koonin EV Zdobnov EM Grigoriev IV Lynch M Boore JL 2011 The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex. Science331:555–561.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1197761 (opens in a new tab)
- 12.
Domazet-Loso T Brajkovic J Tautz D 2007 A phylostratigraphy approach to uncover the genomic history of major adaptations in metazoan lineages. Trends in Genetics23:533–539.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2007.08.014 (opens in a new tab)
- 13.
Domazet-Loso T Tautz D 2003 An evolutionary analysis of orphan genes in Drosophila. Genome Research13:2213–2219.
Not in our library10.1101/gr.1311003 (opens in a new tab)
- 14.
Gallach M Arnau V Marín I 2007 Global patterns of sequence evolution in Drosophila. BMC Genomics8:408.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2164-8-408 (opens in a new tab)
- 15.
Gao JJ Watabe HA Aotsuka T Pang JF Zhang YP 2007 Molecular phylogeny of the Drosophila obscura species group, with emphasis on the Old World species. BMC Evolutionary Biology7:87.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2148-7-87 (opens in a new tab)
- 16.
Guo WJ Li P Ling J Ye SP 2007 Significant comparative characteristics between orphan and nonorphan genes in the rice (Oryza sativa L.) genome. Comparative and Functional Genomics2007:21676.
Not in our library10.1155/2007/21676 (opens in a new tab)
- 17.
- 18.
Heinen TJ Staubach F Häming D Tautz D 2009 Emergence of a new gene from an intergenic region. Current Biology19:1527–1531.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.049 (opens in a new tab)
- 19.
Hoehn KB McGaugh SE Noor MA 2012 Effects of premature termination codon polymorphisms in the Drosophila pseudoobscura Subclade. Journal of Molecular Evolution75:141–150.
Not in our library10.1007/s00239-012-9528-x (opens in a new tab)
- 20.
Kaessmann H 2010 Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes. Genome Research20:1313–1326.
Not in our library10.1101/gr.101386.109 (opens in a new tab)
- 21.
Khalturin K Anton-Erxleben F Sassmann S Wittlieb J Hemmrich G Bosch TC 2008 A novel gene family controls species-specific morphological traits in Hydra. PLOS Biology6:e278.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.0060278 (opens in a new tab)
- 22.
Khalturin K Hemmrich G Fraune S Augustin R Bosch TC 2009 More than just orphans: are taxonomically-restricted genes important in evolution?Trends in Genetics25:404–413.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tig.2009.07.006 (opens in a new tab)
- 23.
Kleene KC 2005 Sexual selection, genetic conflict, selfish genes, and the atypical patterns of gene expression in spermatogenic cells. Developmental Biology277:16–26.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.09.031 (opens in a new tab)
- 24.
Knowles DG McLysaght A 2009 Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes. Genome Research19:1752–1759.
Not in our library10.1101/gr.095026.109 (opens in a new tab)
- 25.
- 26.
Kofler R Schlötterer C Lelley T 2007 SciRoKo: a new tool for whole genome microsatellite search and investigation. Bioinformatics23:1683–1685.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btm157 (opens in a new tab)
- 27.
Krylov DM Wolf YI Rogozin IB Koonin EV 2003 Gene loss, protein sequence divergence, gene dispensability, expression level, and interactivity are correlated in eukaryotic evolution. Genome Research13:2229–2235.
Not in our library10.1101/gr.1589103 (opens in a new tab)
- 28.
Lee YC Reinhardt JA 2012 Widespread polymorphism in the positions of stop codons in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Biological Evolution4:533–549.
Not in our library10.1093/gbe/evr113 (opens in a new tab)
- 29.
Lemos B Bettencourt BR Meiklejohn CD Hartl DL 2005 Evolution of proteins and gene expression levels are coupled in Drosophila and are independently associated with mRNA abundance, protein length, and number of protein-protein interactions. Molecular Biology and Evolution22:1345–1354.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msi122 (opens in a new tab)
- 30.
Levine MT Jones CD Kern AD Lindfors HA Begun DJ 2006 Novel genes derived from noncoding DNA in Drosophila melanogaster are frequently X-linked and exhibit testis-biased expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America103:9935–9939.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0509809103 (opens in a new tab)
- 31.
Li H Durbin R 2009 Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics25:1754–1760.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 (opens in a new tab)
- 32.
Li H Handsaker B Wysoker A Fennell T Ruan J Homer N Marth G Abecasis G Durbin R, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup 2009 The sequence alignment/map (SAM) format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics25:2078–2079.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 (opens in a new tab)
- 33.
Li W Godzik A 2006 Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics22:1658–1659.
Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btl158 (opens in a new tab)
- 34.
Lipman DJ Souvorov A Koonin EV Panchenko AR Tatusova TA 2002 The relationship of protein conservation and sequence length. BMC Evolutionary Biology2:20.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2148-2-20 (opens in a new tab)
- 35.
Loytynoja A Goldman N 2005 An algorithm for progressive multiple alignment of sequences with insertions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America102:10557–10562.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0409137102 (opens in a new tab)
- 36.
McGaugh SE Heil CS Manzano-Winkler B Loewe L Goldstein S Himmel TL Noor MA 2012 Recombination modulates how selection affects linked sites in Drosophila. PLOS Biology10:e1001422.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.1001422 (opens in a new tab)
- 37.
Meisel RP Han MV Hahn MW 2009 A complex suite of forces drives gene traffic from Drosophila X chromosomes. Genome Biology and Evolution1:176–188.
Not in our library10.1093/gbe/evp018 (opens in a new tab)
- 38.
Metta M Schlötterer C 2008 Male-biased genes are overrepresented among novel Drosophila pseudoobscura sex-biased genes. BMC Evolutionary Biology8:182.
Not in our library10.1186/1471-2148-8-182 (opens in a new tab)
- 39.
- 40.
Obbard DJ Maclennan J Kim KW Rambaut A O’Grady PM Jiggins FM 2012 Estimating divergence dates and substitution rates in the Drosophila phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution29:3459–3473.
Not in our library10.1093/molbev/mss150 (opens in a new tab)
Cited by papers we hold 12
- Protein evidence of unannotated ORFs in Drosophila reveals diversity in the evolution and properties of young proteins · 2022Not checked
- Rapid divergence of the male reproductive proteins in the <i>Drosophila dunni</i> group and implications for postmating incompatibilities between species · 2021Not checked
- Many, but not all, lineage-specific genes can be explained by homology detection failure · 2020No notice
- De novo emergence of adaptive membrane proteins from thymine-rich genomic sequences · 2020Corrected
- Synteny-based analyses indicate that sequence divergence is not the main source of orphan genes · 2020No notice
- De novo gene birth · 2019No notice
- Fact or fiction: updates on how protein-coding genes might emerge de novo from previously non-coding DNA [version 1; referees: 3 approved] · 2017Not checked
- Fast turnover of genome transcription across evolutionary time exposes entire non-coding DNA to de novo gene emergence · 2016No notice
- Genes from scratch – the evolutionary fate of de novo genes · 2015No notice
- Origins of De Novo Genes in Human and Chimpanzee · 2015No notice
- New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation · 2015No notice
- Long non-coding RNAs as a source of new peptides · 2014No notice
Questions about this paper
We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.