Taking the pseudo out of pseudogenes

Horizontal Gene Acquisitions, Mobile Element Proliferation, and Genome Decay in the Host-Restricted Plant Pathogen Erwinia Tracheiphila

Modern industrial agriculture depends on high-density cultivation of genetically similar crop plants, creating favorable conditions for the emergence of novel pathogens with increased fitness in managed compared with ecologically intact settings. Here, we present the genome sequence of six strains of the cucurbit bacterial wilt pathogen Erwinia tracheiphila (Enterobacteriaceae) isolated from infected squash plants in New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Michigan. These genomes exhibit a high proportion of recent horizontal gene acquisitions, invasion and remarkable amplification of mobile genetic elements, and pseudogenization of approximately 20% of the coding sequences. These genome attributes indicate that E. tracheiphila recently emerged as a host-restricted pathogen. Furthermore, chromosomal rearrangements associated with phage and transposable element proliferation contribute to substantial differences in gene content and genetic architecture between the six E. tracheiphila strains and other Erwinia species. Together, these data lead us to hypothesize that E. tracheiphila has undergone recent evolution through both genome decay (pseudogenization) and genome expansion (horizontal gene transfer and mobile element amplification). Despite evidence of dramatic genomic changes, the six strains are genetically monomorphic, suggesting a recent population bottleneck and emergence into E. tracheiphila's current ecological niche.

Pseudogene-expressed RNAs: a new frontier in cancers

Over the past decade, the importance of non-protein-coding functional elements in the human genome has emerged from the water and been identified as a key revelation in post-genomic biology. Since the completion of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) and FANTOM (Functional Annotation of Mammals) project, tens of thousands of pseudogenes as well as numerous long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) genes were identified. However, while pseudogenes were initially regarded as non-functional relics littering the human genome during evolution, recent studies have revealed that they play critical roles at multiple levels in diverse physiological and pathological processes, especially in cancer through parental-gene-dependent or parental-gene-independent regulation. Herein, we review the current knowledge of pseudogenes and synthesize the nascent evidence for functional properties and regulatory modalities exerted by pseudogene-transcribed RNAs in human cancers and prospect the potential as molecular signatures in cancer reclassification and tailored therapy.

To Know How a Gene Works, We Need to Redefine It First but then, More Importantly, to Let the Cell Itself Decide How to Transcribe and Process Its RNAs

Recent genomic and ribonomic research reveals that our genome produces a stupendous amount of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), including antisense RNAs, and that many genes contain other gene(s) in their introns. Since ncRNAs either regulate the transcription, translation or stability of mRNAs or directly exert cellular functions, they should be regarded as the fourth category of RNAs, after ribosomal, messenger and transfer RNAs. These and other research advances challenge the current concept of gene and raise a question as to how we should redefine gene. We can either consider each tiny part of the classically-defined gene, such as each mRNA variant, as a “gene”, or, alternatively and oppositely, regard a whole genomic locus as a “gene” that may contain intron-embedded genes and produce different types of RNAs and proteins. Each of the two ways to redefine gene not only has its strengths and weaknesses but also has its particular concern on the methodology for the determination of the gene's function: Ectopic expression of complementary DNA (cDNA) in cells has in the past decades provided us with great deal of detail about the functions of individual mRNA variants, and will make the data less conflicting with each other if just a small part of a classically-defined gene is considered as a “gene”. On the other hand, genomic DNA (gDNA) will better help us in understanding the collective function of a genomic locus. In our opinion, we need to be more cautious in the use of cDNA and in the explanation of data resulting from cDNA, and, instead, should make delivery of gDNA into cells routine in determination of genes' functions, although this demands some technology renovation.