I'm wondering if coding region sequences generally more conserved than non-coding region sequences in evolution?
Knowing whether or not this holds true can provide directions for metatranscriptome research.
Thanks!
This paper is an oldie but goodie:
Ultraconserved Elements in the Human Genome, by Bejerano, et al.
Some key quotes form the abstract:
These ultraconserved elements of the human genome are most often located either overlapping exons in genes involved in RNA processing or in introns or nearby genes involved in the regulation of transcription and development.
and:
... these represent a class of genetic elements whose functions and evolutionary origins are yet to be determined, but which are more highly conserved between these species than are proteins and appear to be essential for the ontogeny of mammals and other vertebrates.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Sequence conservation is usually linked to functionality. Coding sequences are usually more "functional" than non-coding sequences, and thus more conserved. However, there are several conserved non-coding sequences, such as miRNAs, rRNA, as those sequences possess functionality.
However, most of the non-coding parts of the genome are also non-functional, and thus are not highly conserved throughout evolution.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
version 2.3.6
Could you please provide some references? Thanks!
Try this one.
The claim that "most of non-coding parts of the genome are also non-functional" is not true for organisms with compact genomes like yeast, E. coli & Drosophila. It is true organisms with large genomes like mammals and many plants.
The claim that "most of non-coding parts of the genome are also non-functional" is not true for organisms with compact genomes like yeast, E. coli & Drosophila. It is true for organisms with large genomes like mammals and many plants.