Literature DB >> 22426879

The nearly neutral and selection theories of molecular evolution under the fisher geometrical framework: substitution rate, population size, and complexity.

Pablo Razeto-Barry1, Javier Díaz, Rodrigo A Vásquez.   

Abstract

The general theories of molecular evolution depend on relatively arbitrary assumptions about the relative distribution and rate of advantageous, deleterious, neutral, and nearly neutral mutations. The Fisher geometrical model (FGM) has been used to make distributions of mutations biologically interpretable. We explored an FGM-based molecular model to represent molecular evolutionary processes typically studied by nearly neutral and selection models, but in which distributions and relative rates of mutations with different selection coefficients are a consequence of biologically interpretable parameters, such as the average size of the phenotypic effect of mutations and the number of traits (complexity) of organisms. A variant of the FGM-based model that we called the static regime (SR) represents evolution as a nearly neutral process in which substitution rates are determined by a dynamic substitution process in which the population's phenotype remains around a suboptimum equilibrium fitness produced by a balance between slightly deleterious and slightly advantageous compensatory substitutions. As in previous nearly neutral models, the SR predicts a negative relationship between molecular evolutionary rate and population size; however, SR does not have the unrealistic properties of previous nearly neutral models such as the narrow window of selection strengths in which they work. In addition, the SR suggests that compensatory mutations cannot explain the high rate of fixations driven by positive selection currently found in DNA sequences, contrary to what has been previously suggested. We also developed a generalization of SR in which the optimum phenotype can change stochastically due to environmental or physiological shifts, which we called the variable regime (VR). VR models evolution as an interplay between adaptive processes and nearly neutral steady-state processes. When strong environmental fluctuations are incorporated, the process becomes a selection model in which evolutionary rate does not depend on population size, but is critically dependent on the complexity of organisms and mutation size. For SR as well as VR we found that key parameters of molecular evolution are linked by biological factors, and we showed that they cannot be fixed independently by arbitrary criteria, as has usually been assumed in previous molecular evolutionary models.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22426879      PMCID: PMC3374315          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.112.138628

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


  57 in total

1.  The coupon collector and the suppressor mutation: estimating the number of compensatory mutations by maximum likelihood.

Authors:  Art Poon; Bradley H Davis; Lin Chao
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-05-06       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 2.  A general multivariate extension of Fisher's geometrical model and the distribution of mutation fitness effects across species.

Authors:  Guillaume Martin; Thomas Lenormand
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Model of effectively neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated.

Authors:  M Kimura
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Compensating for our load of mutations: freezing the meltdown of small populations.

Authors:  A Poon; S P Otto
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  On the constancy of the evolutionary rate of cistrons.

Authors:  T Ota; M Kimura
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1971       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 6.  Nonadaptive processes in primate and human evolution.

Authors:  Eugene E Harris
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.868

7.  Testing the neutral theory of molecular evolution with genomic data from Drosophila.

Authors:  Justin C Fay; Gerald J Wyckoff; Chung-I Wu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-02-28       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  The distribution of mutation effects on viability in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  P D Keightley
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  The genomic rate of adaptive amino acid substitution in Drosophila.

Authors:  Nicolas Bierne; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Understanding the evolutionary fate of finite populations: the dynamics of mutational effects.

Authors:  Olin K Silander; Olivier Tenaillon; Lin Chao
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  7 in total

1.  Pleiotropy can be effectively estimated without counting phenotypes through the rank of a genotype-phenotype map.

Authors:  Xun Gu
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Genepleio software for effective estimation of gene pleiotropy from protein sequences.

Authors:  Wenhai Chen; Dandan Chen; Ming Zhao; Yangyun Zou; Yanwu Zeng; Xun Gu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Adaptive Protein Evolution in Animals and the Effective Population Size Hypothesis.

Authors:  Nicolas Galtier
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 5.917

4.  Is adaptation limited by mutation? A timescale-dependent effect of genetic diversity on the adaptive substitution rate in animals.

Authors:  Marjolaine Rousselle; Paul Simion; Marie-Ka Tilak; Emeric Figuet; Benoit Nabholz; Nicolas Galtier
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 5.917

5.  Evolution of Amino Acid Propensities under Stability-Mediated Epistasis.

Authors:  Noor Youssef; Edward Susko; Andrew J Roger; Joseph P Bielawski
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 16.240

6.  The Utility of Fisher's Geometric Model in Evolutionary Genetics.

Authors:  O Tenaillon
Journal:  Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 13.915

7.  Why is cancer not more common? A changing microenvironment may help to explain why, and suggests strategies for anti-cancer therapy.

Authors:  Xiaowei Jiang; Ian P M Tomlinson
Journal:  Open Biol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 6.411

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.