Ortholog Conjecture Research Articles

A Phylogenetic Rate Parameter Indicates Different Sequence Divergence Patterns in Orthologs and Paralogs.

Heterotachy-the change in sequence evolutionary rate over time-is a common feature of protein molecular evolution. Decades of studies have shed light on the conditions under which heterotachy occurs, and there is evidence that site-specific evolutionary rate shifts are correlated with changes in protein function. Here, we present a large-scale, computational analysis using thousands of protein sequence alignments from animal and plant proteomes, representing genes related either by orthology (speciation events) or paralogy (gene duplication), to compare sequence divergence patterns in orthologous vs. paralogous sequence alignments. We use sequence-based phylogenetic analyses to infer overall sequence divergence (tree length/number of sequences) and to fit site-specific rates to a discrete gamma distribution with a shape parameter α. This inference method is applied to real protein sequence alignments, as well as alignments simulated under various models of protein sequence evolution. Our simulations indicate that sequence divergence and the α parameter are positively correlated when sequences evolve with heterotachy, meaning that inferred site rate distributions appear more uniform as sequences diverge. Divergence and α are also positively correlated in both orthologous and paralogous genes, but the average increase in α (as a function of divergence) is significantly higher in paralogous protein alignments than in orthologous alignments. This result is consistent with the widely held view that recently duplicated proteins initially evolve under relaxed selective pressure, promoting functional divergence by accumulation of amino acid replacements, and hence experience more evolutionary rate fluctuations than orthologous proteins. We discuss these findings in the context of the ortholog conjecture, a long-standing assumption in molecular evolution, which posits that protein sequences related by orthology tend to be more functionally conserved than paralogous proteins.

The ortholog conjecture revisited: the value of orthologs and paralogs in function prediction.

MotivationThe computational prediction of gene function is a key step in making full use of newly sequenced genomes. Function is generally predicted by transferring annotations from homologous genes or proteins for which experimental evidence exists. The ‘ortholog conjecture’ proposes that orthologous genes should be preferred when making such predictions, as they evolve functions more slowly than paralogous genes. Previous research has provided little support for the ortholog conjecture, though the incomplete nature of the data cast doubt on the conclusions.ResultsWe use experimental annotations from over 40 000 proteins, drawn from over 80 000 publications, to revisit the ortholog conjecture in two pairs of species: (i) Homo sapiens and Mus musculus and (ii) Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe. By making a distinction between questions about the evolution of function versus questions about the prediction of function, we find strong evidence against the ortholog conjecture in the context of function prediction, though questions about the evolution of function remain difficult to address. In both pairs of species, we quantify the amount of information that would be ignored if paralogs are discarded, as well as the resulting loss in prediction accuracy. Taken as a whole, our results support the view that the types of homologs used for function transfer are largely irrelevant to the task of function prediction. Maximizing the amount of data used for this task, regardless of whether it comes from orthologs or paralogs, is most likely to lead to higher prediction accuracy.Availability and implementation https://github.com/predragradivojac/oc.Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Patterns of gene evolution following duplications and speciations in vertebrates.

BackgroundEukaryotic genes typically form independent evolutionary lineages through either speciation or gene duplication events. Generally, gene copies resulting from speciation events (orthologs) are expected to maintain similarity over time with regard to sequence, structure and function. After a duplication event, however, resulting gene copies (paralogs) may experience a broader set of possible fates, including partial (subfunctionalization) or complete loss of function, as well as gain of new function (neofunctionalization). This assumption, known as the Ortholog Conjecture, is prevalent throughout molecular biology and notably plays an important role in many functional annotation methods. Unfortunately, studies that explicitly compare evolutionary processes between speciation and duplication events are rare and conflicting.MethodsTo provide an empirical assessment of ortholog/paralog evolution, we estimated ratios of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions (ω = dN/dS) for 251,044 lineages in 6,244 gene trees across 77 vertebrate taxa.ResultsOverall, we found ω to be more similar between lineages descended from speciation events (p < 0.001) than lineages descended from duplication events, providing strong support for the Ortholog Conjecture. The asymmetry in ω following duplication events appears to be largely driven by an increase along one of the paralogous lineages, while the other remains similar to the parent. This trend is commonly associated with neofunctionalization, suggesting that gene duplication is a significant mechanism for generating novel gene functions.

Pairwise comparisons across species are problematic when analyzing functional genomic data

There is considerable interest in comparing functional genomic data across species. One goal of such work is to provide an integrated understanding of genome and phenotype evolution. Most comparative functional genomic studies have relied on multiple pairwise comparisons between species, an approach that does not incorporate information about the evolutionary relationships among species. The statistical problems that arise from not considering these relationships can lead pairwise approaches to the wrong conclusions and are a missed opportunity to learn about biology that can only be understood in an explicit phylogenetic context. Here, we examine two recently published studies that compare gene expression across species with pairwise methods, and find reason to question the original conclusions of both. One study interpreted pairwise comparisons of gene expression as support for the ortholog conjecture, the hypothesis that orthologs tend to have more similar attributes (expression in this case) than paralogs. The other study interpreted pairwise comparisons of embryonic gene expression across distantly related animals as evidence for a distinct evolutionary process that gave rise to phyla. In each study, distinct patterns of pairwise similarity among species were originally interpreted as evidence of particular evolutionary processes, but instead, we find that they reflect species relationships. These reanalyses concretely show the inadequacy of pairwise comparisons for analyzing functional genomic data across species. It will be critical to adopt phylogenetic comparative methods in future functional genomic work. Fortunately, phylogenetic comparative biology is also a rapidly advancing field with many methods that can be directly applied to functional genomic data.

Tissue-Specificity of Gene Expression Diverges Slowly between Orthologs, and Rapidly between Paralogs.

The ortholog conjecture implies that functional similarity between orthologous genes is higher than between paralogs. It has been supported using levels of expression and Gene Ontology term analysis, although the evidence was rather weak and there were also conflicting reports. In this study on 12 species we provide strong evidence of high conservation in tissue-specificity between orthologs, in contrast to low conservation between within-species paralogs. This allows us to shed a new light on the evolution of gene expression patterns. While there have been several studies of the correlation of expression between species, little is known about the evolution of tissue-specificity itself. Ortholog tissue-specificity is strongly conserved between all tetrapod species, with the lowest Pearson correlation between mouse and frog at r = 0.66. Tissue-specificity correlation decreases strongly with divergence time. Paralogs in human show much lower conservation, even for recent Primate-specific paralogs. When both paralogs from ancient whole genome duplication tissue-specific paralogs are tissue-specific, it is often to different tissues, while other tissue-specific paralogs are mostly specific to the same tissue. The same patterns are observed using human or mouse as focal species, and are robust to choices of datasets and of thresholds. Our results support the following model of evolution: in the absence of duplication, tissue-specificity evolves slowly, and tissue-specific genes do not change their main tissue of expression; after small-scale duplication the less expressed paralog loses the ancestral specificity, leading to an immediate difference between paralogs; over time, both paralogs become more broadly expressed, but remain poorly correlated. Finally, there is a small number of paralog pairs which stay tissue-specific with the same main tissue of expression, for at least 300 million years.

Genetics in genomic era.

Genetics in genomic era.

Complexity of gene expression evolution after duplication: protein dosage rebalancing.

Ongoing debates about functional importance of gene duplications have been recently intensified by a heated discussion of the “ortholog conjecture” (OC). Under the OC, which is central to functional annotation of genomes, orthologous genes are functionally more similar than paralogous genes at the same level of sequence divergence. However, a recent study challenged the OC by reporting a greater functional similarity, in terms of gene ontology (GO) annotations and expression profiles, among within-species paralogs compared to orthologs. These findings were taken to indicate that functional similarity of homologous genes is primarily determined by the cellular context of the genes, rather than evolutionary history. Subsequent studies suggested that the OC appears to be generally valid when applied to mammalian evolution but the complete picture of evolution of gene expression also has to incorporate lineage-specific aspects of paralogy. The observed complexity of gene expression evolution after duplication can be explained through selection for gene dosage effect combined with the duplication-degeneration-complementation model. This paper discusses expression divergence of recent duplications occurring before functional divergence of proteins encoded by duplicate genes.

Gene Family Level Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression in Mammals Validates the Ortholog Conjecture

The ortholog conjecture (OC), which is central to functional annotation of genomes, posits that orthologous genes are functionally more similar than paralogous genes at the same level of sequence divergence. However, a recent study challenged the OC by reporting a greater functional similarity, in terms of Gene Ontology (GO) annotations and expression profiles, among within-species paralogs compared with orthologs. These findings were taken to indicate that functional similarity of homologous genes is primarily determined by the cellular context of the genes, rather than evolutionary history. However, several subsequent studies suggest that GO annotations and microarray data could artificially inflate functional similarity between paralogs from the same organism. We sought to test the OC using approaches distinct from those used in previous studies. Analysis of a large RNAseq data set from multiple human and mouse tissues shows that expression similarity (correlations coefficients, rank‘s, or Z-scores) between orthologs is substantially greater than that for between-species paralogs with the same sequence divergence, in agreement with the OC and the results of recent detailed analyses. These findings are further corroborated by a fine-grain analysis in which expression profiles of orthologs and paralogs were compared separately for individual gene families. Expression profiles of within-species paralogs are more strongly correlated than profiles of orthologs but it is shown that this is caused by high background noise, that is, correlation between profiles of unrelated genes in the same organism. Z-scores and rank scores show a nonmonotonic dependence of expression profile similarity on sequence divergence. This complexity of gene expression evolution after duplication might be at least partially caused by selection for protein dosage rebalancing following gene duplication.

Correction: The Ortholog Conjecture Is Untestable by the Current Gene Ontology but Is Supported by RNA Sequencing Data

Correction: The Ortholog Conjecture Is Untestable by the Current Gene Ontology but Is Supported by RNA Sequencing Data

The Ortholog Conjecture Is Untestable by the Current Gene Ontology but Is Supported by RNA Sequencing Data

The ortholog conjecture posits that orthologous genes are functionally more similar than paralogous genes. This conjecture is a cornerstone of phylogenomics and is used daily by both computational and experimental biologists in predicting, interpreting, and understanding gene functions. A recent study, however, challenged the ortholog conjecture on the basis of experimentally derived Gene Ontology (GO) annotations and microarray gene expression data in human and mouse. It instead proposed that the functional similarity of homologous genes is primarily determined by the cellular context in which the genes act, explaining why a greater functional similarity of (within-species) paralogs than (between-species) orthologs was observed. Here we show that GO-based functional similarity between human and mouse orthologs, relative to that between paralogs, has been increasing in the last five years. Further, compared with paralogs, orthologs are less likely to be included in the same study, causing an underestimation in their functional similarity. A close examination of functional studies of homologs with identical protein sequences reveals experimental biases, annotation errors, and homology-based functional inferences that are labeled in GO as experimental. These problems and the temporary nature of the GO-based finding make the current GO inappropriate for testing the ortholog conjecture. RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) is known to be superior to microarray for comparing the expressions of different genes or in different species. Our analysis of a large RNA-Seq dataset of multiple tissues from eight mammals and the chicken shows that the expression similarity between orthologs is significantly higher than that between within-species paralogs, supporting the ortholog conjecture and refuting the cellular context hypothesis for gene expression. We conclude that the ortholog conjecture remains largely valid to the extent that it has been tested, but further scrutiny using more and better functional data is needed.

Resolving the Ortholog Conjecture: Orthologs Tend to Be Weakly, but Significantly, More Similar in Function than Paralogs

The function of most proteins is not determined experimentally, but is extrapolated from homologs. According to the “ortholog conjecture”, or standard model of phylogenomics, protein function changes rapidly after duplication, leading to paralogs with different functions, while orthologs retain the ancestral function. We report here that a comparison of experimentally supported functional annotations among homologs from 13 genomes mostly supports this model. We show that to analyze GO annotation effectively, several confounding factors need to be controlled: authorship bias, variation of GO term frequency among species, variation of background similarity among species pairs, and propagated annotation bias. After controlling for these biases, we observe that orthologs have generally more similar functional annotations than paralogs. This is especially strong for sub-cellular localization. We observe only a weak decrease in functional similarity with increasing sequence divergence. These findings hold over a large diversity of species; notably orthologs from model organisms such as E. coli, yeast or mouse have conserved function with human proteins.

On the Use of Gene Ontology Annotations to Assess Functional Similarity among Orthologs and Paralogs: A Short Report.

A recent paper (Nehrt et al., PLoS Comput. Biol. 7:e1002073, 2011) has proposed a metric for the “functional similarity” between two genes that uses only the Gene Ontology (GO) annotations directly derived from published experimental results. Applying this metric, the authors concluded that paralogous genes within the mouse genome or the human genome are more functionally similar on average than orthologous genes between these genomes, an unexpected result with broad implications if true. We suggest, based on both theoretical and empirical considerations, that this proposed metric should not be interpreted as a functional similarity, and therefore cannot be used to support any conclusions about the “ortholog conjecture” (or, more properly, the “ortholog functional conservation hypothesis”). First, we reexamine the case studies presented by Nehrt et al. as examples of orthologs with divergent functions, and come to a very different conclusion: they actually exemplify how GO annotations for orthologous genes provide complementary information about conserved biological functions. We then show that there is a global ascertainment bias in the experiment-based GO annotations for human and mouse genes: particular types of experiments tend to be performed in different model organisms. We conclude that the reported statistical differences in annotations between pairs of orthologous genes do not reflect differences in biological function, but rather complementarity in experimental approaches. Our results underscore two general considerations for researchers proposing novel types of analysis based on the GO: 1) that GO annotations are often incomplete, potentially in a biased manner, and subject to an “open world assumption” (absence of an annotation does not imply absence of a function), and 2) that conclusions drawn from a novel, large-scale GO analysis should whenever possible be supported by careful, in-depth examination of examples, to help ensure the conclusions have a justifiable biological basis.

Testing the Ortholog Conjecture with Comparative Functional Genomic Data from Mammals

A common assumption in comparative genomics is that orthologous genes share greater functional similarity than do paralogous genes (the “ortholog conjecture”). Many methods used to computationally predict protein function are based on this assumption, even though it is largely untested. Here we present the first large-scale test of the ortholog conjecture using comparative functional genomic data from human and mouse. We use the experimentally derived functions of more than 8,900 genes, as well as an independent microarray dataset, to directly assess our ability to predict function using both orthologs and paralogs. Both datasets show that paralogs are often a much better predictor of function than are orthologs, even at lower sequence identities. Among paralogs, those found within the same species are consistently more functionally similar than those found in a different species. We also find that paralogous pairs residing on the same chromosome are more functionally similar than those on different chromosomes, perhaps due to higher levels of interlocus gene conversion between these pairs. In addition to offering implications for the computational prediction of protein function, our results shed light on the relationship between sequence divergence and functional divergence. We conclude that the most important factor in the evolution of function is not amino acid sequence, but rather the cellular context in which proteins act.