Reply to: Identification of old coding regions disproves the hominoid de novo status of genes

Chunfu Xiao,Fan Mo,Yingfei Lu,Qi Xiao,Chao Yao,Ting Li,Jianhuan Qi,Xiaoge Liu,Jia-Yu Chen,Li Zhang,Tiannan Guo,Baoyang Hu,Ni A. An,Chuan-Yun Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02515-4
IF: 19.1
2024-08-27
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Abstract:replying to : E. Leushkin & H. Kaessmann Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02513-6 (2024) We acknowledge the commentary by Leushkin and Kaessmann 1 on our work 2 . While we are in agreement on the evolving nature of defining de novo genes with ribosome profiles, we respectfully disagree with their assertions regarding the definition of ages, de novo status, translation and functions of these genes. Notably, the common definition of de novo genes in the field is based on the age of the open reading frames (ORFs), rather than that of the loci 3,4,5,6 . Moreover, although ribosome profiles are indicative of translation, the profiles derived from a limited range of temporospatial conditions do not necessarily establish a ground truth for the robust translation and functions of de novo genes. Here we present additional data and analyses to counter their assertions, particularly verifying the status of these new genes and providing compelling evidence for in vivo translation of the case gene. The data presented here, together with those from our initial report, clearly verify our original conclusions.
ecology,evolutionary biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?