Search

Insights into the evolution of ancestral complexes and pathways are generally achieved through careful and time-intensive manual analysis often using phylogenetic profiles of the constituent proteins. This manual analysis limits the possibility of including more protein-complex components, repeating the analyses for updated genome sets or expanding the analyses to larger scales. Automated orthology inference should allow such large-scale analyses, but substantial differences between orthologous groups generated by different approaches are observed. We evaluate orthology methods for their ability to recapitulate a number of observations that have been made with regard to genome evolution in eukaryotes. Specifically, we investigate phylogenetic profile similarity (co-occurrence of complexes), the last eukaryotic common ancestor's gene content, pervasiveness of gene loss and the overlap with manually determined orthologous groups. Moreover, we compare the inferred orthologies to each other. We find that most orthology methods reconstruct a large last eukaryotic common ancestor, with substantial gene loss, and can predict interacting proteins reasonably well when applying phylogenetic co-occurrence. At the same time, derived orthologous groups show imperfect overlap with manually curated orthologous groups. There is no strong indication of which orthology method performs better than another on individual or all of these aspects. Counterintuitively, despite the orthology methods behaving similarly regarding large-scale evaluation, the obtained orthologous groups differ vastly from one another. Availability and implementation The data and code underlying this article are available in github and/or upon reasonable request to the corresponding author: https://github.com/ESDeutekom/ComparingOrthologies., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Hotspots of rapid genome evolution hold clues about human adaptation. We present a comparative analysis of nine whole-genome sequenced primates to identify high-confidence targets of positive selection. We find strong statistical evidence for positive selection in 331 protein-coding genes (3%), pinpointing 934 adaptively evolving codons (0.014%). Our new procedure is stringent and reveals substantial artefacts (20% of initial predictions) that have inflated previous estimates. The final 331 positively selected genes (PSG) are strongly enriched for innate and adaptive immunity, secreted and cell membrane proteins (e.g. pattern recognition, complement, cytokines, immune receptors, MHC, Siglecs). We also find evidence for positive selection in reproduction and chromosome segregation (e.g. centromere-associated CENPO, CENPT), apolipoproteins, smell/taste receptors and mitochondrial proteins. Focusing on the virus-host interaction, we retrieve most evolutionary conflicts known to influence antiviral activity (e.g. TRIM5, MAVS, SAMHD1, tetherin) and predict 70 novel cases through integration with virus-human interaction data. Protein structure analysis further identifies positive selection in the interaction interfaces between viruses and their cellular receptors (CD4-HIV; CD46-measles, adenoviruses; CD55-picornaviruses). Finally, primate PSG consistently show high sequence variation in human exomes, suggesting ongoing evolution. Our curated dataset of positive selection is a rich source for studying the genetics underlying human (antiviral) phenotypes. Procedures and data are available at https://github.com/robinvanderlee/positive-selection., (© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research.)