Literature DB >> 15525696

The comparative method rules! Codon volatility cannot detect positive Darwinian selection using a single genome sequence.

Tal Dagan1, Dan Graur.   

Abstract

All established methods for detecting positive selection at the molecular level rely on comparisons between nucleotide sequences. An exceptional method that purports to detect selection on the basis of a single genomic sequence has recently been proposed. This method uses a measure called "codon volatility," defined for each codon as the ratio between the number of nonsynonymous codons that differ from the codon under study at a single nucleotide position and the number of sense codons that differ from the codon under study at a single nucleotide position. Here, we examine various properties of codon volatility and its derivatives and use simulation of evolutionary processes to determine whether they can be used to detect selective pressures. Codons for only four amino acids (glycine, leucine, arginine, and serine) show any variation in codon volatility. Thus, codon volatility is mainly a proxy for amino acid usage, rather than for codon usage, with 65% of all synonymous changes and 27% of all nonsynonymous changes being undetectable by this measure. Genes identified by the volatility method as being subject to positive selection tend to have idiosyncratic amino acid compositions (e.g., they are glycine rich or arginine poor). An additional property of codon volatility is the near zero variance of its mean expectation, which translates into overestimated statistical significance estimates, especially in the absence of corrections for multiple comparisons. A comparison with measures of selection inferred through comparative methodology reveals no relationship between the results of the two methods. Finally, we show that codon volatility can increase in the absence of positive Darwinian selection; that is, increased codon volatility is not indicative of positive selection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15525696     DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msi033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Biol Evol        ISSN: 0737-4038            Impact factor:   16.240


  5 in total

1.  Codon usage and selection on proteins.

Authors:  Joshua B Plotkin; Jonathan Dushoff; Michael M Desai; Hunter B Fraser
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2006-10-14       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Codon volatility of hemagglutinin genes of H5N1 avian influenza viruses from different clades.

Authors:  Prasert Auewarakul; Sunisa Chatsurachai; Alita Kongchanagul; Pumaree Kanrai; Sikarin Upala; Prapat Suriyaphol; Pilaipan Puthavathana
Journal:  Virus Genes       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 2.332

3.  In Arabidopsis thaliana codon volatility scores reflect GC3 composition rather than selective pressure.

Authors:  Mary J O'Connell; Aisling M Doyle; Thomas E Juenger; Mark T A Donoghue; Channa Keshavaiah; Reetu Tuteja; Charles Spillane
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-07-17

4.  Evolution of genetic potential.

Authors:  Lauren Ancel Meyers; Fredric D Ancel; Michael Lachmann
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2005-08-26       Impact factor: 4.475

5.  Synonymous genes explore different evolutionary landscapes.

Authors:  Guillaume Cambray; Didier Mazel
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 5.917

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.