1987•FEBS LettersOpen access

Intron‐dependent evolution: Preferred types of exons and introns

László Patthy

Open full text 300 citations

Abstract

Exon insertions and exon duplications, two major mechanisms of exon shuffling, are shown to involve modules that have introns of the same phase class at both their 5'- and 3'-ends. At the sites of intronic recombinations exon insertions and duplications create new introns which belong to the same phase class as the recipient introns. As a consequence of repeated exon insertions and exon duplications introns of a single phase class predominate in the resulting genes, i.e. gene assembly by exon shuffling is reflected both by this nonrandom intron phase usage and by the correlation between the domain organization of the proteins and exon-intron organization of their genes. Genes that appeared before the eukaryote-prokaryote split do not show these diagnostic signs of exon shuffling. Since ancestral introns (e.g. self-splicing introns) did not favour intronic recombination, exon shuffling may not have been significant in the early part of protein evolution.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Exon insertions and exon duplications, two major mechanisms of exon shuffling, are shown to involve modules that have introns of the same phase class at both their 5'- and 3'-ends. At the sites of intronic recombinations exon insertions and duplications create new introns which belong to the same phase class as the recipient introns. As a consequence of repeated exon insertions and exon duplications introns of a single phase class predominate in the resulting genes, i.e. gene assembly by exon shuffling is reflected both by this nonrandom intron phase usage and by the correlation between the domain organization of the proteins and exon-intron organization of their genes. Genes that appeared before the eukaryote-prokaryote split do not show these diagnostic signs of exon shuffling. Since ancestral introns (e.g. self-splicing introns) did not favour intronic recombination, exon shuffling may not have been significant in the early part of protein evolution.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 300 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Exon insertions and exon duplications, two major mechanisms of exon shuffling, are shown to involve modules that have introns of the same phase class at both their 5'- and 3'-ends. At the sites of intronic recombinations exon insertions and duplications create new introns which belong to the same phase class as the recipient introns. As a consequence of repeated exon insertions and exon duplications introns of a single phase class predominate in the resulting genes, i.e. gene assembly by exon shuffling is reflected both by this nonrandom intron phase usage and by the correlation between the domain organization of the proteins and exon-intron organization of their genes. Genes that appeared before the eukaryote-prokaryote split do not show these diagnostic signs of exon shuffling. Since ancestral introns (e.g. self-splicing introns) did not favour intronic recombination, exon shuffling may not have been significant in the early part of protein evolution.

Key concepts: Exon shuffling, Exon, Intron, Exon trapping, Tandem exon duplication, Genetics, Biology, Gene

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Intron‐dependent evolution: Preferred types of exons and introns — Research Paper | ScholarLens