title: Selection for the compactness of highly expressed genes in Gallus gallus.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Coding sequence (CDS) length, gene size, and intron length vary within a genome and among genomes. Previous studies in diverse organisms, including human, D. Melanogaster, C. elegans, S. cerevisiae, and Arabidopsis thaliana, indicated that there are negative relationships between expression level and gene size, CDS length as well as intron length. Different models such as selection for economy model, genomic design model, and mutational bias hypotheses have been proposed to explain such observation. The debate of which model is a superior one to explain the observation has not been settled down. The chicken (Gallus gallus) is an important model organism that bridges the evolutionary gap between mammals and other vertebrates. As D. Melanogaster, chicken has a larger effective population size, selection for chicken genome is expected to be more effective in increasing protein synthesis efficiency. Therefore, in this study the chicken was used as a model organism to elucidate the interaction between gene features and expression pattern upon selection pressure.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Based on different technologies, we gathered expression data for nuclear protein coding, single-splicing genes from Gallus gallus genome and compared them with gene parameters. We found that gene size, CDS length, first intron length, average intron length, and total intron length are negatively correlated with expression level and expression breadth significantly. The tissue specificity is positively correlated with the first intron length but negatively correlated with the average intron length, and not correlated with the CDS length and protein domain numbers. Comparison analyses showed that ubiquitously expressed genes and narrowly expressed genes with the similar expression levels do not differ in compactness. Our data provided evidence that the genomic design model can not, at least in part, explain our observations. We grouped all somatic-tissue-specific genes (n = 1105), and compared the first intron length and the average intron length between highly expressed genes (top 5% expressed genes) and weakly expressed genes (bottom 5% expressed genes). We found that the first intron length and the average intron length in highly expressed genes are not different from that in weakly expressed genes. We also made a comparison between ubiquitously expressed genes and narrowly expressed somatic genes with similar expression levels. Our data demonstrated that ubiquitously expressed genes are less compact than narrowly expressed genes with the similar expression levels. Obviously, these observations can not be explained by mutational bias hypotheses either. We also found that the significant trend between genes' compactness and expression level could not be affected by local mutational biases. We argued that the selection of economy model is most likely one to explain the relationship between gene expression and gene characteristics in chicken genome.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Natural selection appears to favor the compactness of highly expressed genes in chicken genome. This observation can be explained by the selection of economy model.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biological Technology, Jiangxi Educational Institute, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
authors.forename: You S
authors.initials: YS
authors.lastname: Rao
authors.forename: Zhang F
authors.initials: ZF
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Xue W
authors.initials: XW
authors.lastname: Chai
authors.forename: Guo Z
authors.initials: GZ
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.forename: Ming
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zhou
authors.forename: Qing H
authors.initials: QH
authors.lastname: Nie
authors.forename: Xi Q
authors.initials: XQ
authors.lastname: Zhang
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002645:Chickens / Q000235:genetics*; D016678:Genome / Q000235:genetics; D007438:Introns / Q000235:genetics
references.citation: PLoS One. 2008 Aug 29;3(8):e3093
references.pmid: 18769727
references.citation: Genome Res. 2003 Sep;13(9):1998-2004
references.pmid: 12915492
references.citation: Genetics. 2004 Jul;167(3):1293-304
references.pmid: 15280243
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009 Jul 27;4(7):e6356
references.pmid: 19633720
references.citation: Genome Res. 2006 Mar;16(3):347-54
references.pmid: 16461636
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2002 Aug;31(4):415-8
references.pmid: 12134150
references.citation: Genetics. 2000 Nov;156(3):1285-98
references.pmid: 11063702
references.citation: BMC Evol Biol. 2008 May 20;8:154
references.pmid: 18492248
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 1;21(5):650-9
references.pmid: 15388519
references.citation: Trends Genet. 2008 Oct;24(10):481-4
references.pmid: 18786740
references.citation: Genetics. 2005 May;170(1):481-5
references.pmid: 15781704
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(20):5906-14
references.pmid: 17062620
references.citation: Genome Res. 2003 Oct;13(10):2260-4
references.pmid: 12975314
references.citation: Trends Genet. 2008 Aug;24(8):375-8
references.pmid: 18586348
references.citation: Trends Genet. 2003 Jul;19(7):362-5
references.pmid: 12850439
references.citation: Genome Res. 2006 Nov;16(11):1339-44
references.pmid: 17065604
references.citation: Biol Direct. 2009 Nov 21;4:45; discussion 45
references.pmid: 19930585
references.citation: Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2009 Nov;16(11):1128-33
references.pmid: 19820712
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Dec 9;432(7018):695-716
references.pmid: 15592404
references.citation: Genome Res. 2004 Aug;14(8):1530-6
references.pmid: 15256508
references.citation: Genome Biol. 2005;6(8):R67
references.pmid: 16086849
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2007 May;20(3):1223-9
references.pmid: 17465932
references.citation: Hum Mol Genet. 2005 Sep 1;14(17):2533-46
references.pmid: 16037065
references.citation: J Biol. 2004;3(5):21
references.pmid: 15588312
references.citation: J Mol Evol. 2007 May;64(5):511-8
references.pmid: 17460807
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Jun;22(6):1475-81
references.pmid: 15788745
references.citation: Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007 Aug 31;360(3):586-92
references.pmid: 17610841
references.citation: J Biol. 2009;8(3):33
references.pmid: 19371447
references.citation: Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2001 Dec;11(6):652-9
references.pmid: 11682309
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Dec 9;432(7018):717-22
references.pmid: 15592405
references.citation: Genome Biol Evol. 2009 Sep 22;1:382-90
references.pmid: 20333206
references.citation: Trends Genet. 2004 May;20(5):248-53
references.pmid: 15109779
references.citation: PLoS Genet. 2005 Aug;1(2):e13
references.pmid: 16110339
references.citation: Genetica. 2002 May;115(1):81-91
references.pmid: 12188050
references.citation: Yi Chuan. 2007 Sep;29(9):1083-8
references.pmid: 17855258
references.citation: BMC Genomics. 2009 May 09;10:213
references.pmid: 19426519
references.citation: Science. 2003 May 30;300(5624):1393
references.pmid: 12775832
references.citation: Trends Genet. 2005 Apr;21(4):203-7
references.pmid: 15797613
references.citation: Genome Res. 2007 Jul;17(7):1045-50
references.pmid: 17495009
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Jan;59(1):126-37
references.pmid: 15792233
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jun;21(6):1014-23
references.pmid: 15014158
references.citation: Genome Res. 2000 Jan;10(1):137-47
references.pmid: 10645958