AvailableAnalysis release 2026.10.25Mammalia

UCP family evolution and mammalian UCP1 selection analysis

A quality-controlled analysis of UCP1, UCP2 and UCP3 family membership, followed by codon-based tests of UCP1 evolution in 12 deep-hibernating mammals and 18 non-hibernating controls.

202UCP family representatives
30mammals in the primary analysis
0.15558whole-gene ω: purifying selection
0.5976PAML branch-model P value
0.9384RELAX P value
0.5000BUSTED P value

Biological interpretation

UCP1 coding sequences are predominantly conserved by purifying selection. Across the sampled mammals, the analysis does not support a common shift in UCP1 selection pressure associated with deep hibernation, selection relaxation or intensification on deep-hibernator branches, or episodic diversifying positive selection in those branches.

What this means for dormancy research

The result argues against one broad explanation—widespread coding-sequence adaptation of UCP1 shared by deep hibernators—under the tested models and sampling. It directs attention toward expression regulation, tissue-specific control, protein activity, individual sites, and lineage-specific mechanisms. Those are follow-up hypotheses, not findings established by this release.

A gene-average ω below 1 indicates purifying selection on average. Different ω estimates between groups do not by themselves demonstrate positive selection, and a non-significant test does not prove biological equivalence.

Data and methods

  1. Resolve the UCP family. Separate UCP1, UCP2 and UCP3 representatives and assess family membership with a phylogenetic tree.
  2. Validate coding sequences. Require CDS length to be divisible by three, translation identity of at least 98%, and a protein-length difference of no more than two amino acids.
  3. Build codon alignments. Align proteins with MAFFT L-INS-i and back-translate using validated CDS. Analyze both the full alignment and an 80% occupancy alignment.
  4. Test selection on an independent species topology. Run PAML M0 and two-ω branch models, HyPhy RELAX, and HyPhy BUSTED.
  5. Assess robustness. Repeat PAML and RELAX after removing bats, sciurids, bears, or hedgehog.
Quality-control measureResult
UCP family representatives56 UCP1; 81 UCP2; 65 UCP3
CDS–protein validation55 of 56 UCP1 representatives passed
Mammalian UCP1 clade42 sequences; UFBoot = 99
Primary phenotype groups12 deep hibernators; 18 controls
Full / 80% occupancy alignments313 / 306 codons

Primary and sensitivity results

DatasetHibernator ωControl ωPAML PRELAX KRELAX P
Primary, 80% occupancy0.166660.153450.59761.02620.9384
Full alignment0.164880.154720.68331.07690.8037
Bats removed0.112760.133720.46061.16480.5943
Sciurids removed0.172200.159220.63363.30710.1718
Bears removed0.163230.155560.75981.06720.8534
Hedgehog removed0.202920.152620.11250.81470.4169

All six PAML branch comparisons and all six RELAX tests were non-significant. BUSTED returned P = 0.5000 for the primary dataset.

Key output files

The complete archive additionally contains inputs, alternative alignments, model outputs, scripts and logs. SHA-256 checksums accompany the downloaded files.