Relation between each pair of genome variables: (A) Genome size and coding, (B) Genome size and gene content, (C) Gene content and coding. Note the logarithmic scale on both axes. Insets show the linear relation for all multicellular groups. (D) Relation between the percentage of coding within genes and genes within genomes. Colors represent the different taxonomic groups under study.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Relation between genome size and gene content for each taxonomical group.

Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Relation between genome size and coding DNA for each taxonomical group.

Figure 1—figure supplement 3. Relation between gene content and coding DNA for each taxonomical group.

Average, standard deviation and the range (i.e, the minimum and maximum values) of the relative amounts of gene content and coding DNA within genomes, and coding DNA within genes. Each row corresponds to a given taxonomical group: prokaryotes (n=684), unicellular eukaryotes (n=34), fungi (n=69), flowering plants (n=75), arthropods (n=61), fish (n=88), birds (n=26), and mammals (n=70).

Pearson correlation between the relative amount of genes within genomes and alternative splicing ratio for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.716,p-value=3.181e-12), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.823,p-value=2.419e-07), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.604,p-value=4.646e-10), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=0.712,p-value=1.234e-10), and (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=0.151,p-value=0.193). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Relation between genome size and alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomical group.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Relation between the gene content and alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomical group.

Figure 2—figure supplement 3. Relation between the amount of coding DNA and alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomical group.

Figure 2—figure supplement 4. Relation between the relative amount of coding DNA within genomes and alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomical group.

Figure 2—figure supplement 5. Relation between the relative amount of coding DNA within genes and alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomical group.

Average, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and range (i.e, minimum and maximum values) of alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomic group: prokaryotes (n=684), unicellular eukaryotes (n=34), fungi (n=69), flowering plants (n=75), arthropods (n=61), fish (n=88), birds (n=26), and mammals (n=70).

Contribution of alternative splicing ratio to (A) the percentage of intergenic DNA and (B) the percentage of coding composing genes. The inset shows the relation in logarithmic scale and its associated pearson correlation (r=-0.305). Colors represent the different taxonomical groups.

Contribution of alternative splicing ratio to (A) genome size, (B) gene content, (C) protein-coding DNA, and (D) the percentage of coding relative to genome sizes. Slopes correspond to variability relations (i.e, the ratio between their standard deviations).

Relation of variability, r, between alternative splicing ratio (x) and genome size, gene content, coding, and percentage of coding relative to genome sizes (y) for each taxonomic group: mammals (n=70), birds (n=26), fish (n=88), arthropods (n=61), and flowering plants (n=75)

Percentages of genome composition and the alternative splicing ratio for each taxonomic group: prokaryotes (n=684), unicellular eukaryotes (n=34), fungi (n=69), flowering plants (n=75), arthropods (n=61), fish (n=88), birds (n=26), and mammals (n=70).

Representation of the alternative splicing ratio. In this figure, coding DNA has eight nucleotides, which build three different protein isoforms composed of 6, 3, and 6 nucleotides, respectively. Thus, the alternative splicing ratio is computed as (6 + 3 + 6)∕8 = 1.875.

Classification of the organisms into taxonomical groups according to the NCBI Taxonomy Database (Federhen, 2011, 2014)

Pearson correlation between genome size and gene content for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.629,p-value=5.25e-09), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.401,p-value=0.04228), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.962,p-value<2.2e-16), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=0.893,p-value<2.2e-16), (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=0.669,p-value=5.135e-11), (F) n = 69 fungi (r=0.951,p-value<2.2e-16), (G) n = 34 unicellular eukaryotes (r=0.946,p-value<2.2e-16), (H) n = 396 bacteria (r=0.994,p-value=2.2e-16), and (I) n = 288 archaea (r=0.986,p-value<2.2e-16). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between genome size and coding DNA for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.481,p-value=2.405e-05), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.425,p-value=0.03039), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.8,p-value<2.2e-16), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=0.531,p-value=1.045e-05), (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=0.473,p-value=1.799e-05), (F) n = 69 fungi (r=0.951,p-value<2.2e-16), (G) n = 34 unicellular eukaryotes (r=0.929,p-value=2.306e-15), (H) n = 396 bacteria (r=0.994,p-value<2.2e-16), and (I) n = 288 archaea (r=0.985,p-value<2.2e-16). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between gene content and coding DNA for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.617,p-value=1.292e-08), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.762,p-value=0.6.067e-06), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.774,p-value<2.2e-16), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=0.457,p-value=0.00021), (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=0.649,p-value=2.853e-10), (F) n = 69 fungi (r=0.962,p-value<2.2e-16), (G) n = 34 unicellular eukaryotes (r=0.832,p-value=1.032e-09), (H) n = 396 bacteria (r=0.999,p-value<2.2e-16), and (I) n = 288 archaea (r=0.999,p-value<2.2e-16). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between genome size and alternative splicing ratio for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.107,p-value=0.376), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.002,p-value=0.99), (C) n = 88 fish (r=-0.162,p-value=0.129), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=-0.4,p-value=0.001), and (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=-0.023,p-value=0.844). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between the gene content and alternative splicing ratio for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.711,p-value=5.407e-12), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.786,p-value=1.887e-06), (C) n = 88 fish (r=-0.012,p-value=0.911), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=-0.238,p-value=0.064), and (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=0.149,p-value=0.202). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between the amount of coding DNA and alternative splicing ratio for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.531,p-value=2.272e-06), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.541,p-value=0.004), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.055,p-value=0.607), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=-0.314,p-value=0.013), and (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=-0.139,p-value=0.231). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between the relative amount of coding DNA within genomes and alternative splicing ratio for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=0.014,p-value=0.905), (B) n = 26 birds (r=0.351,p-value=0.077), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.273,p-value=0.009), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=0.264,p-value=0.039), and (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=-0.021,p-value=0.855). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.

Pearson correlation between the relative amount of coding DNA within genes and alternative splicing ratio for (A) n = 70 mammals (r=-0.631,p-value=4.663e-09), (B) n = 26 birds (r=-0.791,p-value=1.449e-06), (C) n = 88 fish (r=0.041,p-value=0.706), (D) n = 61 arthropods (r=0.022,p-value=0.862), and (E) n = 75 flowering plants (r=-0.366,p-value=0.001). Slopes correspond to linear regressions.