FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019953254> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019953254 endingPage "R333" @default.
• W2019953254 startingPage "R332" @default.
• W2019953254 abstract "What is the origin of the term ‘homology’? Richard Owen (1804–1892) defined homology as “the same organ under every variety of form and function”. Owen conceived of homologous structures as those that, while differing in detail, were derived from the same body plan, or ‘archetype’. By contrast, analogous structures were those that performed similar functions but did not appear to be derived from the same archetype. After Darwin, homologous morphologies were reinterpreted as having derived by divergence from a common ancestral structure. Meanwhile, analogous morphologies were thought to have arisen by convergence, such as the independent invention of wings during bird and bat evolution. So now, homology describes descent from a common evolutionary origin: two genes are homologous if they derive from the same ancestral gene. Differentiating between homology and analogy is not mere pedantry: homology allows Darwinian evolutionary theory to be applied accurately across the biosciences. And, as Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975) famously remarked, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Is sequence similarity the same as homology? Definitely not. Sequence similarity is a quantity that is agnostic of evolution. In contrast, homology is a property that describes evolutionary history. Just as with bird wings and bat wings, perceived similarities between sequences need not be due to a common evolutionary origin. Research papers sometimes wrongly quote values of ‘percent homology’. In these cases ‘percent identity’ is meant, as two genes either have a common ancestor or they do not. The only appropriate use of ‘percent homology’ is when separate portions of a gene have distinct evolutionary histories, for example as a result of a gene fusion event. How can one be sure beyond reasonable doubt that two similar sequences are homologous? Using statistics you can estimate how likely it is that randomly composed sequences yield alignment scores that are at least as high as that obtained between the real sequences in question. For example, the BLAST program reports an Expect (or E) value for each alignment (with score x), which is the number of times sequences are expected, with scores ≥x, to crop up in a search just by chance. As E gets closer to zero, the more confident one should be in a prediction of homology. Many users cautiously consider only those alignments with E-values lower than 10−3 as substantiating evidence for homology. Is any other evidence relevant? Structural similarities are important too. But once again we are faced with ‘similarities’: we cannot be sure that just because two proteins fold up in the same way it means they arose from a common ancestor. Nevertheless, spatial coincidence of active or binding sites, or unusual structure, can boost the odds of a homology prediction being correct. What about convergent evolution? As far as we can tell, the convergence of gene sequences is extremely rare. It is, by far, ‘easier’ for Nature to duplicate a gene than invent similar genes on two separate occasions. By contrast, independent invention of protein structure is often suggested to have occurred, yet for most of these cases the evolutionary provenance is unclear. What are ‘orthology’, ‘paralogy’ and ‘xenology’? These are relationships between genes best visualized in a phylogenetic tree. Orthologs are genes resulting from the splitting of different lineages – speciation. Paralogous genes arise from duplications within the same genome. Lastly, genes that have been acquired via horizontal – or ‘lateral’ – transfer between different species are referred to as xenologues. These relationships are clearly illustrated in Figure 1. However, lineage-specific gene deletion, pseudogenisation, duplication, conversion and rapid sequence divergence can all confuse phylogenetic tree reconstruction. For example, the loss of genes A2 and B1 in Figure 1 may cause duplication event DP1 to go undetected, and hence an erroneous assignment of paralogous genes A1 and B2 as orthologs. Gene conversion fuses sequences with contrasting heritages. It can result in a gene in one species being both orthologous and paralogous to a gene in another. Horizontal gene transfers can lead to incongruencies between gene-based and taxon-based trees which often assist the detection of xenology relationships. Note that these relationships are defined with respect to evolution, and not function. Nevertheless, they are useful in predicting function as the more recently two genes shared a common ancestor, the more likely it is that they have retained similar functions. Moreover, orthologous genes that have been spared by natural selection from deletion or duplication over many millions of years are also likely to share overlapping functions. Do the terms orthology, paralogy and xenology apply only to genes? No: the same terms can be used for genomic regions encompassing several genes, and even single nucleotide sites. For example, large chromosomal segments that arose by an intra-genome duplication are paralogous genomic regions, which some call ‘paralogons’. Similarly, sequences that have persisted essentially intact in two species since their common ancestor may be termed orthologous genomic regions. What about synteny and orthologous genomic regions? Synteny – literally the ‘same thread’ – was defined originally as relating to gene loci on the same chromosome. In comparative genomics, however, ‘synteny’ has become short-hand for ‘conserved synteny’, and used synonymously with orthologous genomic regions containing orthologous genes in a similar collinear order. Do we need new terms (neologies)? Some would say that we do. They argue that we should coin terms to describe similarities – in sequence or structure, for example – between biological molecules regardless of whether these arose by divergence from a common ancestor. Only definitions that are useful will survive, they suggest, while those that are not will be dropped (a linguistic mimicking of purifying selection). We believe that there is too much bewilderment already in the use of homology, orthology and paralogy, so introducing yet more terms appears to be asking for trouble. Moreover, the terms in current use are sufficient, when applied appropriately, to qualitatively describe the consequences of gene duplication (homologs), speciation (orthologs), intragenome duplication (paralogs) and horizontal transfer (xenologues), which are four of the major evolutionary forces acting on genes. Where can I find out more?" @default.
• W2019953254 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019953254 creator A5021151726 @default.
• W2019953254 creator A5029013428 @default.
• W2019953254 date "2004-05-01" @default.
• W2019953254 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2019953254 title "Genes and homology" @default.
• W2019953254 cites W1572339952 @default.
• W2019953254 cites W1890088071 @default.
• W2019953254 cites W2010562878 @default.
• W2019953254 cites W2068018119 @default.
• W2019953254 cites W2108836454 @default.
• W2019953254 cites W319819633 @default.
• W2019953254 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.04.016" @default.
• W2019953254 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15120081" @default.
• W2019953254 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2019953254 type Work @default.
• W2019953254 sameAs 2019953254 @default.
• W2019953254 citedByCount "25" @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542012 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542013 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542014 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542016 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542017 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542019 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542020 @default.
• W2019953254 countsByYear W20199532542022 @default.
• W2019953254 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019953254 hasAuthorship W2019953254A5021151726 @default.
• W2019953254 hasAuthorship W2019953254A5029013428 @default.
• W2019953254 hasBestOaLocation W20199532541 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C165525559 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C2779315201 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C3017666073 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C104317684 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C165525559 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C2779315201 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C3017666073 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C54355233 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C70721500 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C78458016 @default.
• W2019953254 hasConceptScore W2019953254C86803240 @default.
• W2019953254 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W2019953254 hasLocation W20199532541 @default.
• W2019953254 hasLocation W20199532542 @default.
• W2019953254 hasOpenAccess W2019953254 @default.
• W2019953254 hasPrimaryLocation W20199532541 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W1977706274 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2034554207 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2045313050 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2163211634 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2365352214 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2370259341 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2373327015 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W2386533626 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W3151890006 @default.
• W2019953254 hasRelatedWork W75402877 @default.
• W2019953254 hasVolume "14" @default.
• W2019953254 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2019953254 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2019953254 magId "2019953254" @default.
• W2019953254 workType "article" @default.