Information

Gene duplicated on genome but is different

Gene duplicated on genome but is different


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I've been looking at a miRNA cluster on a genome and I found it three times. The first two are right next to each other and look exactly the same, the third sequences is on a different scaffold of the genome and is both shorter and has a number of mismatches with the first two sequences.

Is there a particular name for this? The first two are most likely some sort of gene duplication, but I'm not too sure on what to call the third,

Thanks


That sounds line one of two things. Either a sequencing or assembly error (quite likely since you're talking about scaffolds so, presumably, not a completely assembled genome) or duplication and subsequent pseudogenization.

It is relatively common for genes to be duplicated and then to be rendered inactive by a mutation event. Such genes can still be detected in the genome and are called pseudogenes. The process of their creation is, unsurprisingly, called pseudogenization. You can think of such genes as fossils. They often have significant sequence similarity to the original and can even be transcribed.

A quick search brought up a couple of articles discussing the pseudogenization of specific genes:

That said, is also quite possible that what you describe is a simple duplicate that has diverged without becoming a pseudogene. The details will depend on the particular sequence. Are there in-frame STOP codons? Can the gene still be transcribed? Such duplication events give rise to paralogs (note that all three of the genes you mention would be paralogs of each other, it's just that one has diverged more than the others). You can read more about those here: What is the difference between orthologs, paralogs and homologs?



Comments:

  1. Duardo

    Absolutely agrees with you. The good idea, it agrees with you.

  2. Swayn

    Radically wrong information

  3. Samugami

    Could have written better

  4. Brajinn

    What entertaining answer

  5. Moriarty

    You don't have to try everything



Write a message