Transcription controlreprogramming in geneticbackup circuitsLiterature search4/6/2005WANG Chao
Transcription control reprogramming in genetic backup circuits Literature search WANG Chao 4/6/2005
Why this question?^ Why severe mutations often do not result in adetectably abnormal phenotyperobustness was partially ascribed to redundant paralogs^ Understand both the relevance of transcriptionregulation to duplicate retention in evolution andits role in controlling expression of genes thatprovide backup in case of mutation
Why this question? ► Why severe mutations often do not result in a detectably abnormal phenotype. robustness was partially ascribed to redundant paralogs ► Understand both the relevance of transcription regulation to duplicate retention in evolution and its role in controlling expression of genes that provide backup in case of mutation
Definition· For each pair of paralogs, 40 correlationcoefficients of mRNA expression corresponding to40 different experiments? Mean expression similarity:means of such correlations for each piar Partial coregulation (PCoR) values:standard deviations of such correlations for each pair
Definition • For each pair of paralogs, 40 correlation coefficients of mRNA expression corresponding to 40 different experiments • Mean expression similarity: means of such correlations for each piar • Partial coregulation (PCoR) values: standard deviations of such correlations for each pair
Inspected close and remote paralogous pairsseparately and found markedly different trends: In remote pairs, backup was most efficient amongtranscriptionally noncorrelated pairs, as their essentialitywas substantially lower than that of single genes.These results provide a potential explanation for theobserved decrease in backup capacity with increasedcoexpressionIn contrast to remote pairs, close pairs showed an almostopposite, more intuitive trend
Inspected close and remote paralogous pairs separately and found markedly different trends: • In remote pairs, backup was most efficient among transcriptionally noncorrelated pairs, as their essentiality was substantially lower than that of single genes. These results provide a potential explanation for the observed decrease in backup capacity with increased coexpression. • In contrast to remote pairs, close pairs showed an almost opposite, more intuitive trend
Dependence of backupon expression similarity between paralogs1ba0.9souotaesuepouaodosieneesuedipoodoid0.90.80.80.7 0.70.60.60.50.40.50.30.4 0.20.30.10.20.500.20.40.80.30.60.70.60.40.20.610.40.8PCoRMean expression similarity
Dependence of backup on expression similarity between paralogs