Younger genes are less likely to be essential than older genes, and duplicates are less likely to be essential than singletons of the same age.
Bottom Line: A priori, they are thus less likely to be essential.We herein show that older genes (i.e., genes with earlier phyletic origin) are more likely to be essential, regardless of their duplication status.At a given phyletic gene age, duplicates are always less likely to be essential compared with singletons.
Recently duplicated genes are believed to often overlap in function and expression. A priori, they are thus less likely to be essential. Although this was indeed observed in yeast, mouse singletons and duplicates were reported to be equally often essential. This contradiction can only partly be explained by experimental biases. We herein show that older genes (i.e., genes with earlier phyletic origin) are more likely to be essential, regardless of their duplication status. At a given phyletic gene age, duplicates are always less likely to be essential compared with singletons. The "paradoxical" high essentiality among mouse gene duplicates is then caused by different age profiles of singletons and duplicates, with the latter tending to be derived from older genes.
Mentions: To test this idea, we classified mouse and yeast genes into different age groups according to their earliest phyletic origin (see Materials and Methods). We classified genes as specific to one of five taxonomic groups for yeast (fig. 1A) and six broad taxonomic groups for mouse (fig. 1C). Because of the large differences between yeast and mouse, we did not attempt any direct cross-species comparisons and did not attempt to map their histories onto a common timescale.Fig. 1.