©2020-2032 All Rights Reserved. Online Journal of Bioinformatics. You may not store these pages in any form except for your own personal use. All other usage or distribution is illegal under international copyright treaties. Permission to use any of these pages in any other way besides the before mentioned must be gained in writing from the publisher. This article is exclusively copyrighted in its entirety to firstname.lastname@example.org. This article may be copied once but may not be, reproduced or re-transmitted without the express permission of the editors. Linking: To link to this page or any pages linking to this page you must link directly to this page only here rather than put up your own page.
Online Journal of Bioinformatics©
Volume 21 (3):288-300, 2020.
Dopamine receptor D1A phylogenetic relationship amongst different organisms.
Prashant Shukla, PhD,
Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences, The Neotia University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, 8719024461
Shukla P., Dopamine receptor d1a phylogenetic relationship amongst different organisms, Onl J Bioinform, 21 (3):288-300, 2020. Cell to cell communication by signal transduction proteins is essential for cell survival. Author describes phylogeny of dopamine receptor D1A from public databases in animals, primates, apes and humans. The dopamine receptor D1A phylogenetic tree revealed expected branches of old separate from new world primates. Phylogenetic analysis of dopamine receptor D1A of 50 animals, 6 apes and humans showed similar branching. The dopamine receptor D1A of gorilla was closest to human while chimpanzee and bonobo were similar but further from human and gorilla, Orangutan and gibbon produced separate branches. The tentative groups formed in the phylogenetic analysis were similar to previous findings but dopamine receptors genes in humans revealed receptors D1A and D5 and proteins D2, D3 and D4 to form two dopamine families. Different motif locations in similar organisms suggested that D1A amino acid sequences differed even though gene function remained similar.