Evolution of the nuclear receptor superfamily: early diversification from an ancestral orphan receptor

Laudet, Vincent

doi:10.1677/jme.0.0190207

Cited by 488 publications

(348 citation statements)

References 99 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

322

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of mutation for the ETS domain expressed in Pauling units (PAU), varies with the gene considered over a range of 0.6 ± 0.04 PAU, which corresponds to the accumulation of 1% divergence in 8 ± 150 million years. These values are comparable with other transcription factors such as the nuclear receptors which evolved in overall at 0.303 PAU (Laudet, 1997). Interestingly, we observed extremely di erent values between the genes ( Figure 4).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…The overall pattern of diversi®cation of the ets gene family appears quite similar to what has been shown for other gene families such as the Hox/HOM or the nuclear receptor genes (Averof, 1997;Laudet, 1997). Clearly, the origin of the ets family is extremely ancient and may be traced back to the appearance of the ®rst metazoans.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…This contrasts with the pattern observed for Hox/HOM or nuclear receptor genes for which a clear increase in gene number from diploblastic grade animals to triploblastic coelomates has been observed, as exampli®ed for the Hox gene complex of nematodes containing only ®ve genes whereas the complex of Drosophila contains eight genes and the archetypal vertebrate complex 13 genes (reviewed in Averof, 1997). For nuclear receptors, it has been proposed that only two of the six described subfamilies were present in diploblastic Metazoans (Escriva et al, 1997;Laudet, 1997). The conservation in gene number for ETS family implies that each group of ETS genes should be found in each studied Metazoan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The standard errors were estimated using the MEGA package. Crude data were transformed into evolutionary speed and expressed in number of mutations per site and per year (mut/site/year) using the following divergence times: Mus-Rattus: 13 MYr; Homo-Mus and Homo-Rattus: 70 MYr; Mammals-Gallus: 300 MYr; Mammals-Xenopus and Gallus-Xenopus 360 MYr (see Laudet, 1997). Data were transformed in Pauling units (10 79 mut/site/ year).…”

Section: Determination Of Evolutionary Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Molecular phylogeny of the ETS gene family

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have constructed a molecular phylogeny of the ETS gene family. By distance and parsimony analysis of the ETS conserved domains we show that the family containing so far 29 di erent genes in vertebrates can be divided into 13 groups of genes namely ETS, ER71, GABP, PEA3, ERG, ERF, ELK, DETS4, ELF, ESE, TEL, YAN, SPI. Since the three dimensional structure of the ETS domain has revealed a similarity with the winged-helix ± turn ± helix proteins, we used two of them (CAP and HSF) to root the tree. This allowed us to show that the family can be divided into ®ve subfamilies: ETS, DETS4, ELF, TEL and SPI. The ETS subfamily comprises the ETS, ER71, GABP, PEA3, ERG, ERF and the ELK groups which appear more related to each other than to any other ETS family members. The fact that some members of these subfamilies were identi®ed in early metazoans such as diploblasts and sponges suggests that the diversi®cation of ETS family genes predates the diversi®cation of metazoans. By the combined analysis of both the ETS and the PNT domains, which are conserved in some members of the family, we showed that the GABP group, and not the ERG group, is the one most closely related to the ETS group. We also observed that the speed of accumulation of mutations in the various genes of the family is highly variable. Noticeably, paralogous members of the ELK group exhibit strikingly di erent evolutionary speed suggesting that the evolutionary pressure they support is very di erent.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Determination Of Evolutionary Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Molecular phylogeny of the ETS gene family

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Orphan nuclear receptor subfamily members share similar structural features within three major structural domains: the N-terminal domain, the most variable in size and sequence [4,5]; the centrally-located DNA-binding domain, which is the most conserved and confers the ability to recognize specific target DNA sequences [6]; and the C-terminal ligand (like)-binding domain, a multifunctional domain responsible for ligand-dependent transcriptional activation in liganded receptors, and that also plays a role in co-regulators recruitment [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probing conformational changes in orphan nuclear receptor: The NGFI-B intermediate is a partially unfolded dimer

Garcia¹,

Figueira²,

Neto³

et al. 2008

Biophysical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

show abstract

Plasticity and constraints in development and evolution

Hodin

2000

J. Exp. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological similarities between organisms may be due to either homology or homoplasy. Homologous structures arise by common descent from an ancestral form, whereas homoplasious structures are independently derived in the respective lineages. The finding that similar ontogenetic mechanisms underlie the production of the similar structures in both lineages is not sufficient evidence of homology, as such similarities may also be due to parallel evolution. Parallelisms are a class of homoplasy in which the two lineages have come up with the same solution independently using the same ontogenetic mechanism. The other main class of homoplasy, convergence, is superficial similarity in morphological structures in which the underlying ontogenetic mechanisms are distinct. I argue that instances of convergence and parallelism are more common than is generally realized. Convergence suggests flexibility in underlying ontogenetic mechanisms and may be indicative of developmental processes subject to phenotypic plasticity. Parallelisms, on the other hand, may characterize developmental processes subject to constraints. Distinguishing between homology, parallelisms and convergence may clarify broader taxonomic patterns in morphological evolution.

show abstract

Evolution of the nuclear receptor superfamily: early diversification from an ancestral orphan receptor

Cited by 488 publications

References 99 publications

Molecular phylogeny of the ETS gene family

Molecular phylogeny of the ETS gene family

Probing conformational changes in orphan nuclear receptor: The NGFI-B intermediate is a partially unfolded dimer

Plasticity and constraints in development and evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About