Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to: ‘Subfunctionalization versus neofunctionalization after whole-genome duplication’

Nature Genetics volume 50, pages 910–911 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Braasch et al. reply: Understanding mechanisms that preserve duplicated genetic elements after whole-genome duplication (WGD) remains an unresolved issue. Sandve et al.1 compared two methods to analyze the frequency of subfunctionalization and neofunctionalization as mechanisms for the preservation of ohnologs (WGD gene duplicates) for two different WGD events2,3. They conclude that differences arose from analytical methods rather than biology. This finding is important because differences in the antiquity and possibly the origins of WGD by allo- versus autopolyploidy might result in different evolutionary patterns in different WGD events.

A problem for evaluation is distinguishing events in the preservation phase from later events in the maintenance phase. Non-functionalization occurs within a few million years of WGD6, and duplicate preservation must occur on a similar timescale. For both the teleost genome duplication (TGD; ~350 million years ago) and the salmonid genome duplication (SaGD; ~95 million years ago), ohnologs in extant fish have spent far more time in maintenance than in preservation and, hence, signatures of sub- and neofunctionalization, which refer exclusively to preservation4, can be obscured by changes in the long maintenance phase.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Models for gene evolution after whole-genome duplication.

References

  1. Sandve, S. R., Rohlfs, R. & Hvidsten, T. R. Nat. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0162-4 (2018).

  2. Braasch, I. et al. Nat. Genet. 48, 427–437 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lien, S. et al. Nature 533, 200–205 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Force, A. et al. Genetics 151, 1531–1545 (1999).

  5. Ohno, S. Evolution by Gene Duplication (Springer, Berlin, 1970) .

  6. Inoue, J., Sato, Y., Sinclair, R., Tsukamoto, K. & Nishida, M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14918–14923 (2015).

  7. Blanc, G. & Wolfe, K. H. Plant Cell 16, 1679–1691 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore, R. C. & Purugganan, M. D. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8, 122–128 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brunet, F. G. et al. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 1808–1816 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by US National Institutes of Health grants R01 OD011116 (alias R01 RR020833) and R24 OD01119004 (J.H.P.); a Feodor Lynen Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Volkswagen Foundation Initiative Evolutionary Biology, grant I/84 815 (I.B.); and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) grant ANR-10-GENM-017 (PhyloFish; J.B. and Y.G.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Ingo Braasch

  2. INRA, UR1037 LPGP, Campus de Beaulieu, Rennes, France

    Julien Bobe & Yann Guiguen

  3. Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

    John H. Postlethwait

Authors
  1. Ingo Braasch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Bobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yann Guiguen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John H. Postlethwait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

I.B., J.B., Y.G. and J.H.P. designed studies, conducted studies, analyzed data and wrote the letter.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. Postlethwait.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braasch, I., Bobe, J., Guiguen, Y. et al. Reply to: ‘Subfunctionalization versus neofunctionalization after whole-genome duplication’ . Nat Genet 50, 910–911 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0163-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0163-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research