CompositeSearch: A Generalized Network Approach for Composite Gene Families Detection.

Genes evolve by point mutations, but also by shuffling, fusion, and fission of genetic fragments. Therefore, similarity between two sequences can be due to common ancestry producing homology, and/or partial sharing of component fragments. Disentangling these processes is especially challenging in large molecular data sets, because of computational time. In this article, we present CompositeSearch, a memory-efficient, fast, and scalable method to detect composite gene families in large data sets (typically in the range of several million sequences). CompositeSearch generalizes the use of similarity networks to detect composite and component gene families with a greater recall, accuracy, and precision than recent programs (FusedTriplets and MosaicFinder). Moreover, CompositeSearch provides user-friendly quality descriptions regarding the distribution and primary sequence conservation of these gene families allowing critical biological analyses of these data.

Bipartite graph analyses reveal interdomain LGT involving ultrasmall prokaryotes and their divergent, membrane-related proteins.

Based on their small size and genomic properties, ultrasmall prokaryotic groups like the Candidate Phyla Radiation have been proposed as possible symbionts dependent on other bacteria or archaea. In this study, we use a bipartite graph analysis to examine patterns of sequence similarity between draft and complete genomes from ultrasmall bacteria and other complete prokaryotic genomes, assessing whether the former group might engage in significant gene transfer (or even endosymbioses) with other community members. Our results provide preliminary evidence for many lateral gene transfers with other prokaryotes, including members of the archaea, and report the presence of divergent, membrane-associated proteins among these ultrasmall taxa. In particular, these divergent genes were found in TM6 relatives of the intracellular parasite Babela massiliensis.

Unity and disunity in evolutionary sciences: process-based analogies open common research avenues for biology and linguistics.

BACKGROUND: For a long time biologists and linguists have been noticing surprising similarities between the evolution of life forms and languages. Most of the proposed analogies have been rejected. Some, however, have persisted, and some even turned out to be fruitful, inspiring the transfer of methods and models between biology and linguistics up to today. Most proposed analogies were based on a comparison of the research objects rather than the processes that shaped their evolution. Focusing on process-based analogies, however, has the advantage of minimizing the risk of overstating similarities, while at the same time reflecting the common strategy to use processes to explain the evolution of complexity in both fields. RESULTS: We compared important evolutionary processes in biology and linguistics and identified processes specific to only one of the two disciplines as well as processes which seem to be analogous, potentially reflecting core evolutionary processes. These new process-based analogies support novel methodological transfer, expanding the application range of biological methods to the field of historical linguistics. We illustrate this by showing (i) how methods dealing with incomplete lineage sorting offer an introgression-free framework to analyze highly mosaic word distributions across languages; (ii) how sequence similarity networks can be used to identify composite and borrowed words across different languages; (iii) how research on partial homology can inspire new methods and models in both fields; and (iv) how constructive neutral evolution provides an original framework for analyzing convergent evolution in languages resulting from common descent (Sapir's drift). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from new analogies between evolutionary processes, we also identified processes which are specific to either biology or linguistics. This shows that general evolution cannot be studied from within one discipline alone. In order to get a full picture of evolution, biologists and linguists need to complement their studies, trying to identify cross-disciplinary and discipline-specific evolutionary processes. The fact that we found many process-based analogies favoring transfer from biology to linguistics further shows that certain biological methods and models have a broader scope than previously recognized. This opens fruitful paths for collaboration between the two disciplines. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle and Eugene V. Koonin.