Literature DB >> 16143614

Why are phenotypic mutation rates much higher than genotypic mutation rates?

Reinhard Bürger1, Martin Willensdorfer, Martin A Nowak.   

Abstract

The evolution of genotypic mutation rates has been investigated in numerous theoretical and experimental studies. Mutations, however, occur not only when copying DNA, but also when building the phenotype, especially when translating and transcribing DNA to RNA and protein. Here we study the effect of such phenotypic mutations. We find a maximum phenotypic mutation rate, umax, that is compatible with maintaining a certain function of the organism. This may be called a phenotypic error threshold. In particular, we find a minimum phenotypic mutation rate, umin, with the property that there is (nearly) no selection pressure to reduce the rate of phenotypic mutations below this value. If there is a cost for lowering the phenotypic mutation rate, then umin is close to the optimum phenotypic mutation rate that maximizes the fitness of the organism. In our model, there is selective pressure to decrease the rate of genotypic mutations to zero, but to decrease the rate of phenotypic mutations only to a positive value. Despite its simplicity, our model can explain part of the huge difference between genotypic and phenotypic mutation rates that is observed in nature. The relevant data are summarized.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16143614      PMCID: PMC1456147          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.105.046599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  21 in total

Review 1.  Terumi Mukai and the riddle of deleterious mutation rates.

Authors:  P D Keightley; A Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  On the fidelity of transcription by Escherichia coli ribonucleic acid polymerase.

Authors:  C F Springgate; L A Loeb
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1975-10-05       Impact factor: 5.469

3.  Complete mutagenesis of the HIV-1 protease.

Authors:  D D Loeb; R Swanstrom; L Everitt; M Manchester; S E Stamper; C A Hutchison
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1989-08-03       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Mistranslation in E. coli.

Authors:  P Edelmann; J Gallant
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 41.582

5.  Transcriptional fidelity and proofreading by RNA polymerase II.

Authors:  M J Thomas; A A Platas; D K Hawley
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 6.  Rates of spontaneous mutation.

Authors:  J W Drake; B Charlesworth; D Charlesworth; J F Crow
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Analysis of photoenzymatic repair of UV lesions in DNA by single light flashes. II. In vivo studies with Escherichia coli cells and bacteriophage.

Authors:  W Harm; H Harm; C S Rupert
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1968 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.433

8.  Use of an in vivo reporter assay to test for transcriptional and translational fidelity in yeast.

Authors:  Randal J Shaw; Nicholas D Bonawitz; Daniel Reines
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2002-05-02       Impact factor: 5.157

9.  The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Part A: Emergence of the hypercycle.

Authors:  M Eigen; P Schuster
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  1977-11

10.  Systematic mutation of bacteriophage T4 lysozyme.

Authors:  D Rennell; S E Bouvier; L W Hardy; A R Poteete
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1991-11-05       Impact factor: 5.469

View more
  19 in total

1.  Evolutionary paths of least resistance.

Authors:  Claus O Wilke
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Population genetics of translational robustness.

Authors:  Claus O Wilke; D Allan Drummond
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2006-02-19       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Potential role of phenotypic mutations in the evolution of protein expression and stability.

Authors:  Moshe Goldsmith; Dan S Tawfik
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  The evolutionary consequences of erroneous protein synthesis.

Authors:  D Allan Drummond; Claus O Wilke
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Preventing dangerous nonsense: selection for robustness to transcriptional error in human genes.

Authors:  Brian P Cusack; Peter F Arndt; Laurent Duret; Hugues Roest Crollius
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 5.917

6.  Genetic code evolution reveals the neutral emergence of mutational robustness, and information as an evolutionary constraint.

Authors:  Steven E Massey
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2015-04-24

7.  Nascent RNA folding mitigates transcription-associated mutagenesis.

Authors:  Xiaoshu Chen; Jian-Rong Yang; Jianzhi Zhang
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 9.043

8.  Phenotypic mutation rates and the abundance of abnormal proteins in yeast.

Authors:  Martin Willensdorfer; Reinhard Bürger; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2007-09-06       Impact factor: 4.475

9.  The look-ahead effect of phenotypic mutations.

Authors:  Dion J Whitehead; Claus O Wilke; David Vernazobres; Erich Bornberg-Bauer
Journal:  Biol Direct       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 4.540

Review 10.  Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian Evolution.

Authors:  Michael K Skinner
Journal:  Genome Biol Evol       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 3.416

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.