酵母基因组中ORF数目与长度的关系

根据NCBI数据库中基因注释序列及相关注释文件,统计了酿酒酵母基因组中不同长度的开阅读框架(Open ReadingFrame,ORF)的数目,分析了开阅读框架的数目随长度的分布关系,结果发现有明显的规律性。根据分布的特点用各种分布模型进行拟合比较,提出这类分布是Г(α,β)分布的假设。进一步根据Г(α,β)分布估算了酵母基因组蛋白质编码序列的数目为5870个。该结果对于基因注释具有一定的参考价值。     

密码对的使用与基因组进化

以5种真核、20种细菌、10种古菌生物的基因组为样本,分析了编码序列中密码对和基因间序列中三联体对的相对模式数随频数的分布,验证了这种分布符合Γ(α,β)分布。发现分布形状参数!值与生物基因组进化存在明显的相关性;编码序列与基因间序列的进化方式截然不同。随着进化,编码序列的分布形状逐渐向随机分布靠近(α值逐渐增大)。而对基因间序列,古菌与真核生物的分布形状接近,与细菌的分布相差明显。     

果蝇基因组中内含子数目随其长度的分布研究

为了研究内含子可能储存的有关生命进化信息,本研究以果蝇基因组中的内含子为样本,统计了内含子在不同长度区间内的相对频数,得到了内含子随其长度的分布,发现这种分布呈现出一定的规律性,即长度在1~80 bp内的内含子数目随其长度增加而增加,长度大于80 bp的内含子数目随其长度的增加而减少;本研究推论这种分布规律应该与某种分布模型一致,经过各种分布的拟合,最后发现这种分布与Γ(α,β)分布相符合;另外,将果蝇内含子分布规律和相应的外显分布进行了比较分析,发现虽然两类序列的分布规律都符合Γ(α,β)分布,但也存在明显的区别,并就此讨论了两类序列在生物进化中的意义。     

密码对的偏爱与基因组进化的相关性分析

以5种真核、15种细菌、10种古菌生物基因组为样本,对密码对使用偏好性指标Г与密码对随基因组进化的指标α之间作线性分析,发现部分密码对的r值与α之间有显著的线性关系;密码子第三位点与紧邻密码子第一位点的双碱基（cP3cAl）使用与基因组进化有关。结果进一步肯定了密码对的使用与基因组进化存在相关性,同时从密码对使用的角度揭示了真核生物、真细菌、古菌的基本差别。     

酵母、大肠杆菌和枯草杆菌基因组中短ORF的分布与形成原因

用终止密码方法计算了酵母、大肠杆菌和枯草杆菌基因组中所有的第一类开阅读框架（记为理论ORF）,给出了理论ORF和已知ORF随长度的分布,发现长度大于150个氨基酸后,理论ORF与已知ORF分布基本趋于一致,小于150个氨基酸的理论ORF数目的对数随长度线性变化,并提出这些短ORF是随机产生的猜想;研究了组分约束下的随机DNA序列中ORF数目、ORF的长度与随机序列总长度和GC含量之间的关系,证明了本文猜想的正确性;给出了短的理论ORF中可能的编码序列所占比例的分布曲线,这对识别短的编码序列有参考价值。     

鸟类基因组核苷酸频数的进化模型

鸟类是四足类动物中最丰富的一类脊椎动物,本研究以12种鸟类的全基因组核苷酸序列数据为研究对象,建立核苷酸频数进化方程,研究了鸟类基因组核苷酸频数的进化机制和规律。通过拟合基因组数据确定了方程中的进化惯性参数、耗散参数和环境参数,估算出进化速率,得到了基因组长度随时间的演化曲线,解出了基因组在短时间内快速增加,信息快速积累,然后进入进化停滞阶段,核苷酸频数不再明显变化。本研究的方法为定量研究鸟类和一般物种的进化提供了新的思路。     

10株铜绿假单胞菌的全基因组序列分析

目的 了解不同分离来源铜绿假单胞菌的全基因组基本特征,以此分析基因组多态性及其遗传进化关系。方法 选择10株医源性和食源性来源的铜绿假单胞菌代表性菌株,应用Solexa高通量测序技术对其进行全基因组测序,以此进行多位点序列分型(multilocus sequence typing, MLST),比较各菌株基因组中携带的耐药基因、毒力基因及插入序列(insertion sequence, IS)元件,并通过比较基因组学分析方法拟合泛基因组和核心基因组积累曲线,筛选核心基因SNP构建系统发育分子进化树。结果 10株菌的基因组从6.3～7.0 Mbp大小不一,包含5 868～6 598个基因,平均G+C含量为67.1%;发现10个菌株各具不同的ST型。在这10个菌株的基因组中,共检测到75种耐药基因,包括抗β-内酰胺酶类、抗氨基糖苷类、抗氟喹诺酮类等;共发现188种毒力基因,不同来源菌株间无明显差异;各菌株之间IS元件种类和数量差异较大。分析发现,铜绿假单胞菌具有开放型泛基因组和稳定型核心基因组;10株菌可分为3个进化分支,且不同分离时间和来源无明显相关性。结论 本研究获得10株不同分离来源的铜绿假单胞菌的全基因组序列,初步证实食品及患者分离来源菌株基因组数据无明显相关性,为后续铜绿假单胞菌的分子流行病学和致病性机制研究提供数据参考。     

SARS病毒基因组的多态性

对SARS病人粪便样本直接测序,得到SRAS—CoV BJ202全基因组序列（AY864806）。应用比较基因组研究方法对GenBank中公布的115株SARS—CoV基因组序列以及BJ202进行分析。以GZ02序列为参照,发现2个以上基因组中同时存在单核苷酸多态（SNP）位点共278个。多态位点在SARS—CoV基因组中呈偏态分布,大约一半突变位点（50．4％,140／278）发生在基因组3’末端1／3区域。编码Orf10-11、Orf3／4、E蛋白、M蛋白和S蛋白区域突变率较高。克隆并测序含有BJ202基因组12个多态位点的11个cDNA以及4个不含已知多态位点的cDNA片段（15个片段总长度为6．0kb）,结果显示：BJ202特有的3个多态位点（13804、1503l和20792）以及另外3个多态位点（26428、26477和27243）均检出两种不同核苷酸;位点18379虽在已公布的115株SARS—CoV基因组中未发现突变,实际上也是多态位点。14个克隆中有8个克隆该位点为A,6个克隆为G。全部116个SARS—CoV基因组中共有18种缺失类型和2种插入类型。大部分缺失发生在编码ORF9和ORF10-11区域（基因组序列27700—28000bp处）。以邻位连接法（Neighbor-Joining）构建了116株SARS—CoV系统发育树,BJ202与BJ01和LLJ-2004等SARS—CoV的亲缘关系较接近。     

脊椎动物基因组进化原因的争论

脊椎动物基因组进化原因的争论马德如（南开大学生命科学学院分子生物学研究所,天津３０００７１）关键词基因组进化７０年代以来,Ｂｅｒｎａｒｄｉ等发现在温血脊椎动物（鸟类和哺乳类）与冷血脊椎动物（鱼类、两栖类、爬行类）间基因组的结构特点有明显不同。温血脊椎...     

昆虫基因组大小及其进化

基因组是物种遗传信息的集合,其大小是研究基因组进化、结构及功能的重要参数之一。本文介绍了测定基因组大小的方法,简述了基因组大小的进化假说及分子机制,综述了近年来昆虫基因组大小的研究进展,尤其是昆虫基因组大小变化的相关影响因子。总体而言,昆虫基因组大小变化是一个复杂的过程,与转座子的活性有密切的关系,是基因组序列丢失和获得两种过程平衡的结果。基因组大小的变化仍在不断地进化中,其对生物造成的影响是剧烈的,因此对昆虫的表型特征产生了重要的影响,但影响的程度和关系在不同的类群有明显的差异,表现出一定的随机性,目前尚未总结出明显的规律。昆虫是生物多样性最为丰富的动物类群,是研究基因组大小进化的最佳材料,随着越来越多的昆虫基因组被测序公开,对昆虫基因组数据进行深入分析,有利于破解基因组大小进化的"C值之谜",可为生物基因组大小的研究提供重要参考。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor