Orphan gene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphan genes, ORFans,[1][2] or taxonomically restricted genes (TRGs)[3] are genes that lack a detectable homologue outside of a given species or lineage.[2] Most genes have known homologues. Two genes are homologous when they share an evolutionary history, and the study of groups of homologous genes allows for an understanding of their evolutionary history and divergence. Common mechanisms that have been uncovered as sources for new genes through studies of homologues include gene duplication, exon shuffling, gene fusion and fission, etc.[4][5] Studying the origins of a gene becomes more difficult when there is no evident homologue.[6] The discovery that about 10% or more of the genes of the average microbial species is constituted by orphan genes raises questions about the evolutionary origins of different species as well as how to study and uncover the evolutionary origins of orphan genes.

In some cases, a gene can be classified as an orphan gene due to undersampling of the existing genome space. While it is possible that homologues exist for a given gene, that gene will still be classified as an orphan if the organisms harbouring homologues have not yet been discovered and had their genomes sequenced and properly annotated. For example, one study of orphan genes across 119 archaeal and bacterial genomes could identify that at least 56% were recently acquired from integrative elements (or mobile genetic elements) from non-cellular sources such as viruses and plasmids that remain to be explored and characterized, and another 7% arise through horizontal gene transfer from distant cellular sources (with an unknown proportion of the remaining 37% potentially coming from still unknown families of integrative elements).[7] In other cases, limitations in computational methods for detecting homologues may result in missed homologous sequences and thus classification of a gene as an orphan. Homology detection failure appears to account for the majority, but not all orphan genes.[8] In other cases, homology between genes may go undetected due to rapid evolution and divergence of one or both of these genes from each other to the point where they do not meet the criteria used to classify genes as evidently homologous by computational methods. One analysis suggests that divergence accounts for a third of orphan gene identifications in eukaryotes.[9] When homologous genes exist but are simply undetected, the emergence of these orphan genes can be explained by well-characterized phenomena such as genomic recombination, exon shuffling, gene duplication and divergence, etc. Orphan genes may also simply lack true homologues and in such cases have an independent origins via de novo gene birth, which tends to be a more recent event.[2] These processes may act at different rates in insects, primates, and plants.[10] Despite their relatively recent origin, orphan genes may encode functionally important proteins.[11][12] Characteristics of orphan genes include AT richness, relatively recent origins, taxonomic restriction to a single genome, elevated evolution rates, and shorter sequences.[13]

Some approaches characterize all microbial genes as part of one of two classes of genes. One class is characterized by conservation or partial conservation across lineages, whereas the other (represented by orphan genes) is characterized by evolutionarily instantaneous rates of gene turnover/replacement with a negligible effect on fitness when such genes are either gained or lost. These orphan genes primarily derive from mobile genetic elements and tend to be 'passively selfish', often devoid of cellular functions (which is why they experience little selective pressure in their gain or loss from genomes) but persist in the biosphere due to their transient movement across genomes.[14][15]


Orphan genes were first discovered when the yeast genome-sequencing project began in 1996.[2] Orphan genes accounted for an estimated 26% of the yeast genome, but it was believed that these genes could be classified with homologues when more genomes were sequenced.[3] At the time, gene duplication was considered the only serious model of gene evolution[2][4][16] and there were few sequenced genomes for comparison, so a lack of detectable homologues was thought to be most likely due to a lack of sequencing data and not due to a true lack of homology.[3] However, orphan genes continued to persist as the quantity of sequenced genomes grew,[3][17] eventually leading to the conclusion that orphan genes are ubiquitous to all genomes.[2] Estimates of the percentage of genes which are orphans varies enormously between species and between studies; 10-30% is a commonly cited figure.[3]

The study of orphan genes emerged largely after the turn of the century. In 2003, a study of Caenorhabditis briggsae and related species compared over 2000 genes.[3] They proposed that these genes must be evolving too quickly to be detected and are consequently sites of very rapid evolution.[3] In 2005, Wilson examined 122 bacterial species to try to examine whether the large number of orphan genes in many species was legitimate.[17] The study found that it was legitimate and played a role in bacterial adaptation. The definition of taxonomically-restricted genes was introduced into the literature to make orphan genes seem less "mysterious."[17]

In 2008, a yeast protein of established functionality, BSC4, was found to have evolved de novo from non-coding sequences whose homology was still detectable in sister species.[18]

In 2009, an orphan gene was discovered to regulate an internal biological network: the orphan gene, QQS, from Arabidopsis thaliana modifies plant composition.[19] The QQS orphan protein interacts with a conserved transcription factor, these data explain the compositional changes (increased protein) that are induced when QQS is engineered into diverse species.[20] In 2011, a comprehensive genome-wide study of the extent and evolutionary origins of orphan genes in plants was conducted in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana "[21]


Genes can be tentatively classified as orphans if no orthologous proteins can be found in nearby species.[10]

One method used to estimate nucleotide or protein sequence similarity indicative of homology (i.e. similarity due to common origin) is the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST). BLAST allows query sequences to be rapidly searched against large sequence databases.[22][23] Simulations suggest that under certain conditions BLAST is suitable for detecting distant relatives of a gene.[24] However, genes that are short and evolve rapidly can easily be missed by BLAST.[25]

The systematic detection of homology to annotate orphan genes is called phylostratigraphy.[26] Phylostratigraphy generates a phylogenetic tree in which the homology is calculated between all genes of a focal species and the genes of other species. The earliest common ancestor for a gene determines the age, or phylostratum, of the gene. The term "orphan" is sometimes used only for the youngest phylostratum containing only a single species, but when interpreted broadly as a taxonomically-restricted gene, it can refer to all but the oldest phylostratum, with the gene orphaned within a larger clade.

Homology detection failure accounts for a majority of classified orphan genes.[8] Some scientists have attempted to recover some homology by using more sensitive methods, such as remote homology detection. In one study, remote homology detection techniques were used to demonstrate that a sizable fraction of orphan genes (over 15%) still exhibited remote homology despite being missed by conventional homology detection techniques, and that their functions were often related to the functions of nearby genes at genomic loci.[27]


Orphan genes arise from multiple sources, predominantly through de novo origination, duplication and rapid divergence, and horizontal gene transfer.[2]

De novo gene birth[edit]

Novel orphan genes continually arise de novo from non-coding sequences.[28] These novel genes may be sufficiently beneficial to be swept to fixation by selection. Or, more likely, they will fade back into the non-genic background. This latter option is supported by research in Drosophila showing that young genes are more likely go extinct.[29]

De novo genes were once thought to be a near impossibility due to the complex and potentially fragile intricacies of creating and maintaining functional polypeptides,[16] but research from the past 10 years or so has found multiple examples of de novo genes, some of which are associated with important biological processes, particularly testes function in animals. De novo genes were also found in fungi and plants.[18][30][31][5][32][33][34][35]

For young orphan genes, it is sometimes possible to find homologous non-coding DNA sequences in sister taxa, which is generally accepted as strong evidence of de novo origin. However, the contribution of de novo origination to taxonomically-restricted genes of older origin, particularly in relation to the traditional gene duplication theory of gene evolution, remains contested.[36][37] Logistically, de novo origination is much easier for RNA genes than protein-coding ones and Nathan H. Lents and colleagues recently reported the existence of several young microRNA genes on human chromosome 21.[38]

Duplication and divergence[edit]

The duplication and divergence model for orphan genes involves a new gene being created from some duplication or divergence event and undergoing a period of rapid evolution where all detectable similarity to the originally duplicated gene is lost.[2] While this explanation is consistent with current understandings of duplication mechanisms,[2] the number of mutations needed to lose detectable similarity is large enough as to be a rare event,[2][24] and the evolutionary mechanism by which a gene duplicate could be sequestered and diverge so rapidly remains unclear.[2][39]

Horizontal gene transfer[edit]

Another explanation for how orphan genes arise is through a duplication mechanism called horizontal gene transfer, where the original duplicated gene derives from a separate, unknown lineage.[2] This explanation for the origin of orphan genes is especially relevant in bacteria and archaea, where horizontal gene transfer is common.

Protein characteristics[edit]

Orphans genes tend to be very short (~6 times shorter than mature genes), and some are weakly expressed, tissue specific and simpler in codon usage and amino acid composition.[40] Orphan genes tend to encode more intrinsically disordered proteins,[41][42][43] although some structure has been found in one of the best characterized orphan genes.[44] Of the tens of thousands of enzymes of primary or specialized metabolism that have been characterized to date, none are orphans, or even of restricted lineage; apparently, catalysis requires hundreds of millions of years of evolution.[40]

Biological functions[edit]

While the prevalence of orphan genes has been established, the evolutionary role of orphans, and its resulting importance, is still being debated. One theory is that many orphans have no evolutionary role; genomes contain non-functional open reading frames (ORFs) that create spurious polypeptide products not maintained by selection, meaning that they are unlikely to be conserved between species and would likely be detected as orphan genes.[3] However, a variety of other studies have shown that at least some orphans are functionally important and may help explain the emergence of novel phenotypes.[2][3][17][19][20][21]

See Also[edit]


  1. ^ Fischer D, Eisenberg D (September 1999). "Finding families for genomic ORFans". Bioinformatics. 15 (9): 759–762. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/15.9.759. PMID 10498776.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Tautz D, Domazet-Lošo T (August 2011). "The evolutionary origin of orphan genes". Nature Reviews. Genetics. 12 (10): 692–702. doi:10.1038/nrg3053. PMID 21878963. S2CID 31738556.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Khalturin K, Hemmrich G, Fraune S, Augustin R, Bosch TC (September 2009). "More than just orphans: are taxonomically-restricted genes important in evolution?". Trends in Genetics. 25 (9): 404–413. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.07.006. PMID 19716618.
  4. ^ a b Ohno S (11 December 2013). Evolution by Gene Duplication. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-642-86659-3.
  5. ^ a b Zhou Q, Zhang G, Zhang Y, Xu S, Zhao R, Zhan Z, et al. (September 2008). "On the origin of new genes in Drosophila". Genome Research. 18 (9): 1446–1455. doi:10.1101/gr.076588.108. PMC 2527705. PMID 18550802.
  6. ^ Toll-Riera M, Bosch N, Bellora N, Castelo R, Armengol L, Estivill X, Albà MM (March 2009). "Origin of primate orphan genes: a comparative genomics approach". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 26 (3): 603–612. doi:10.1093/molbev/msn281. PMID 19064677.
  7. ^ Cortez, Diego; Forterre, Patrick; Gribaldo, Simonetta (2009). "A hidden reservoir of integrative elements is the major source of recently acquired foreign genes and ORFans in archaeal and bacterial genomes". Genome Biology. 10 (6): R65. doi:10.1186/gb-2009-10-6-r65. ISSN 1465-6906. PMC 2718499. PMID 19531232.
  8. ^ a b Weisman CM, Murray AW, Eddy SR (November 2020). "Many, but not all, lineage-specific genes can be explained by homology detection failure". PLOS Biology. 18 (11): e3000862. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000862. PMC 7660931. PMID 33137085.
  9. ^ Vakirlis N, Carvunis AR, McLysaght A (February 2020). "Synteny-based analyses indicate that sequence divergence is not the main source of orphan genes". eLife. 9. doi:10.7554/eLife.53500. PMC 7028367. PMID 32066524.
  10. ^ a b Wissler L, Gadau J, Simola DF, Helmkampf M, Bornberg-Bauer E (2013). "Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes". Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (2): 439–455. doi:10.1093/gbe/evt009. PMC 3590893. PMID 23348040.
  11. ^ Reinhardt JA, Wanjiru BM, Brant AT, Saelao P, Begun DJ, Jones CD (17 October 2013). "De novo ORFs in Drosophila are important to organismal fitness and evolved rapidly from previously non-coding sequences". PLOS Genetics. 9 (10): e1003860. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003860. PMC 3798262. PMID 24146629.
  12. ^ Suenaga Y, Islam SM, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, Tanaka Y, et al. (January 2014). "NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas". PLOS Genetics. 10 (1): e1003996. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996. PMC 3879166. PMID 24391509.
  13. ^ Yu G, Stoltzfus A (2012). "Population diversity of ORFan genes in Escherichia coli". Genome Biology and Evolution. 4 (11): 1176–87. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs081. PMC 3514957. PMID 23034216.
  14. ^ Wolf YI, Makarova KS, Lobkovsky AE, Koonin EV (November 2016). "Two fundamentally different classes of microbial genes". Nature Microbiology. 2 (3): 16208. doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.208. PMID 27819663. S2CID 21799266.
  15. ^ Koonin EV, Makarova KS, Wolf YI (July 2021). "Evolution of Microbial Genomics: Conceptual Shifts over a Quarter Century". Trends in Microbiology. 29 (7): 582–592. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2021.01.005. PMC 9404256. PMID 33541841. S2CID 231820647.
  16. ^ a b Jacob F (June 1977). "Evolution and tinkering". Science. 196 (4295): 1161–1166. Bibcode:1977Sci...196.1161J. doi:10.1126/science.860134. PMID 860134.
  17. ^ a b c d Wilson GA, Bertrand N, Patel Y, Hughes JB, Feil EJ, Field D (August 2005). "Orphans as taxonomically restricted and ecologically important genes". Microbiology. 151 (Pt 8): 2499–2501. doi:10.1099/mic.0.28146-0. PMID 16079329.
  18. ^ a b Cai J, Zhao R, Jiang H, Wang W (May 2008). "De novo origination of a new protein-coding gene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae". Genetics. 179 (1): 487–496. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.084491. PMC 2390625. PMID 18493065.
  19. ^ a b Li L, Foster CM, Gan Q, Nettleton D, James MG, Myers AM, Wurtele ES (May 2009). "Identification of the novel protein QQS as a component of the starch metabolic network in Arabidopsis leaves". The Plant Journal. 58 (3): 485–498. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03793.x. PMID 19154206.
  20. ^ a b Li L, Zheng W, Zhu Y, Ye H, Tang B, Arendsee ZW, et al. (November 2015). "QQS orphan gene regulates carbon and nitrogen partitioning across species via NF-YC interactions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (47): 14734–14739. Bibcode:2015PNAS..11214734L. doi:10.1073/pnas.1514670112. PMC 4664325. PMID 26554020.
  21. ^ a b Donoghue MT, Keshavaiah C, Swamidatta SH, Spillane C (February 2011). "Evolutionary origins of Brassicaceae specific genes in Arabidopsis thaliana". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 11 (1): 47. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-11-47. PMC 3049755. PMID 21332978.
  22. ^ Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ (September 1997). "Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs". Nucleic Acids Research. 25 (17): 3389–3402. doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389. PMC 146917. PMID 9254694.
  23. ^ "NCBI BLAST homepage". National Center for Biotechnology Information. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
  24. ^ a b Albà MM, Castresana J (April 2007). "On homology searches by protein Blast and the characterization of the age of genes". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7: 53. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-53. PMC 1855329. PMID 17408474.
  25. ^ Moyers BA, Zhang J (January 2015). "Phylostratigraphic bias creates spurious patterns of genome evolution". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 32 (1): 258–267. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu286. PMC 4271527. PMID 25312911.
  26. ^ Domazet-Loso T, Brajković J, Tautz D (November 2007). "A phylostratigraphy approach to uncover the genomic history of major adaptations in metazoan lineages". Trends in Genetics. 23 (11): 533–539. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2007.08.014. PMID 18029048.
  27. ^ Lobb B, Kurtz DA, Moreno-Hagelsieb G, Doxey AC (2015). "Remote homology and the functions of metagenomic dark matter". Frontiers in Genetics. 6: 234. doi:10.3389/fgene.2015.00234. PMC 4508852. PMID 26257768.
  28. ^ McLysaght A, Guerzoni D (September 2015). "New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 370 (1678): 20140332. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0332. PMC 4571571. PMID 26323763.
  29. ^ Palmieri N, Kosiol C, Schlötterer C (February 2014). "The life cycle of Drosophila orphan genes". eLife. 3: e01311. arXiv:1401.4956. doi:10.7554/eLife.01311. PMC 3927632. PMID 24554240.
  30. ^ Zhao L, Saelao P, Jones CD, Begun DJ (February 2014). "Origin and spread of de novo genes in Drosophila melanogaster populations". Science. 343 (6172): 769–772. Bibcode:2014Sci...343..769Z. doi:10.1126/science.1248286. PMC 4391638. PMID 24457212.
  31. ^ Levine MT, Jones CD, Kern AD, Lindfors HA, Begun DJ (June 2006). "Novel genes derived from noncoding DNA in Drosophila melanogaster are frequently X-linked and exhibit testis-biased expression". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 103 (26): 9935–9939. Bibcode:2006PNAS..103.9935L. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509809103. PMC 1502557. PMID 16777968.
  32. ^ Heinen TJ, Staubach F, Häming D, Tautz D (September 2009). "Emergence of a new gene from an intergenic region". Current Biology. 19 (18): 1527–1531. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.049. PMID 19733073.
  33. ^ Chen S, Zhang YE, Long M (December 2010). "New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential". Science. 330 (6011): 1682–1685. Bibcode:2010Sci...330.1682C. doi:10.1126/science.1196380. PMC 7211344. PMID 21164016.
  34. ^ Reinhardt JA, Wanjiru BM, Brant AT, Saelao P, Begun DJ, Jones CD (17 October 2013). "De novo ORFs in Drosophila are important to organismal fitness and evolved rapidly from previously non-coding sequences". PLOS Genetics. 9 (10): e1003860. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003860. PMC 3798262. PMID 24146629.
  35. ^ Silveira AB, Trontin C, Cortijo S, Barau J, Del Bem LE, Loudet O, et al. (April 2013). "Extensive natural epigenetic variation at a de novo originated gene". PLOS Genetics. 9 (4): e1003437. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003437. PMC 3623765. PMID 23593031.
  36. ^ Neme R, Tautz D (March 2014). "Evolution: dynamics of de novo gene emergence". Current Biology. 24 (6): R238–R240. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.016. PMID 24650912.
  37. ^ Moyers BA, Zhang J (May 2016). "Evaluating Phylostratigraphic Evidence for Widespread De Novo Gene Birth in Genome Evolution". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 33 (5): 1245–1256. doi:10.1093/molbev/msw008. PMC 5010002. PMID 26758516.
  38. ^ Hunter R. Johnson; Jessica A. Blandino; Beatriz C. Mercado; José A. Galván; William J. Higgins; Nathan H. Lents (June 2022). "The evolution of de novo human-specific microRNA genes on chromosome 21". American Journal of Biological Anthropology. 178 (2): 223–243. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24504. S2CID 247240062.
  39. ^ Lynch M, Katju V (November 2004). "The altered evolutionary trajectories of gene duplicates". Trends in Genetics. 20 (11): 544–549. CiteSeerX doi:10.1016/j.tig.2004.09.001. PMID 15475113.
  40. ^ a b Arendsee ZW, Li L, Wurtele ES (November 2014). "Coming of age: orphan genes in plants". Trends in Plant Science. 19 (11): 698–708. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2014.07.003. PMID 25151064.
  41. ^ Mukherjee S, Panda A, Ghosh TC (June 2015). "Elucidating evolutionary features and functional implications of orphan genes in Leishmania major". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 32: 330–337. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2015.03.031. PMID 25843649.
  42. ^ Wilson BA, Foy SG, Neme R, Masel J (June 2017). "Young Genes are Highly Disordered as Predicted by the Preadaptation Hypothesis of De Novo Gene Birth". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1 (6): 0146–146. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0146. PMC 5476217. PMID 28642936.
  43. ^ Willis S, Masel J (September 2018). "Gene Birth Contributes to Structural Disorder Encoded by Overlapping Genes". Genetics. 210 (1): 303–313. doi:10.1534/genetics.118.301249. PMC 6116962. PMID 30026186.
  44. ^ Bungard D, Copple JS, Yan J, Chhun JJ, Kumirov VK, Foy SG, et al. (November 2017). "Foldability of a Natural De Novo Evolved Protein". Structure. 25 (11): 1687–1696.e4. doi:10.1016/j.str.2017.09.006. PMC 5677532. PMID 29033289.