Search

Comparative studies of vertebrate gene promoter regions seldom detect gross rearrangements ('promoter shuffling') since such analyses usually employ relatively similar DNA sequences. Conversely, attempts to compare evolutionarily more divergent promoter sequences have been largely unsuccessful owing to the inability of conventional alignment procedures to deal with gross rearrangements. These limitations have been circumvented in the present study by using the novel technique of complexity analysis to identify modular components ('blocks') in the growth hormone (GH) gene promoter sequences of some 22 vertebrate species, from salmon to human. Significant rearrangement of blocks was found to have occurred, indicating that they have evolved as independent units. Some blocks appear to be ubiquitous, whereas others are restricted to a specific taxon. Considerable variation between orthologous GH gene promoters was apparent in terms of block length, copy number and relative location. It may be inferred that a wide variety of different mutational mechanisms have operated upon the GH gene promoter over evolutionary time. These include gross changes such as deletion, duplication, amplification, elongation, contraction, transposition, inversion and fusion, as well as the slow, steady accumulation of single base-pair substitutions. Thus the patchwork structure of the modular GH promoter region, and those of its paralogous GH2 and prolactin (PRL) counterparts, have continually been shuffled into new combinations through the rearrangement of pre-existing blocks. Although some of these changes may have had no influence on promoter function, others could have served to alter either the level of gene expression or the responsiveness of the promoter to external stimuli.

The evolutionary relationship between the proximal growth hormone (GH) gene promoter sequences of 12 mammalian species was explored by comparison of their trinucleotide composition and by multiple sequence alignment. Both approaches yielded results that were consistent with the known fossil record-based phylogeny of the analysed sequences, suggesting that the two methods of tree reconstruction might be equally efficient and reliable. The pattern of evolution inferred for the mammalian GH gene promoters was found to vary both temporally and spatially. Thus, two distinct regions devoid of any evolutionary changes exist in primates, but only one of these 'gaps' is also observed in rodents, and neither is seen in ruminants. Furthermore, different evolutionary rates must have prevailed during different periods of evolutionary time and in different lineages, with a dramatic increase in evolutionary rate apparent in primates. Since a similar pattern of discontinuity has been previously noted for the evolution of the GH-coding regions, it may reflect the action of positive selection operating upon the GH gene as a single cohesive unit. Strong evidence for the action of gene conversion between primate GH gene promoters is provided by the fact that the human GH1 and GH2 sequences, which are thought to have diverged before the divergence of Old World monkeys from great apes, are more similar to one another than either is to the rhesus monkey GH2 promoter. Finally, it was noted that a number of nucleotide positions in the GH1 gene promoter that are polymorphic in humans appear to be highly conserved in mammals. This apparent conundrum, which could represent a caveat for the interpretation of phylogenetic footprinting studies, is potentially explicable in terms either of reduced genetic diversity in highly inbred animal species or insufficient population data from non-human species.