Paper detail

The mysterious orphans of Mycoplasmataceae

Background: The length of a protein sequence is largely determined by its function, i.e. each functional group is associated with an optimal size. However, comparative genomics revealed that proteins length may be affected by additional factors. In 2002 it was shown that in bacterium Escherichia coli and the archaeon Archaeoglobus fulgidus, protein sequences with no homologs are, on average, shorter than those with homologs. Most experts now agree that the length distributions are distinctly different between protein sequences with and without homologs in bacterial and archaeal genomes. In this study, we examine this postulate by a comprehensive analysis of all annotated prokaryotic genomes and focusing on certain exceptions. Results: We compared lengths distributions of having homologs proteins (HHPs) and non-having homologs proteins (orphans or ORFans) in all currently annotated completely sequenced prokaryotic genomes. As expected, the HHPs and ORFans have strikingly different length distributions in almost all genomes. As previously established, the HHPs, indeed, are, on average, longer than the ORFans, and the length distributions for the ORFans have a relatively narrow peak, in contrast to the HHPs, whose lengths spread over a wider range of values. However, about thirty genomes do not obey these rules. Practically all genomes of Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma have atypical ORFans distributions, with the mean lengths of ORFan larger than the mean lengths of HHPs. These genera constitute over 80% of atypical genomes. Conclusions: We confirmed on a ubiquitous set of genomes the previous observation that HHPs and ORFans have different gene length distributions. We also showed that Mycoplasmataceae genomes have distinctive distributions of ORFans lengths. We offer several possible biological explanations of this phenomenon.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.