Literature DB >> 24830675

Evidence for increased levels of positive and negative selection on the X chromosome versus autosomes in humans.

Krishna R Veeramah1, Ryan N Gutenkunst2, August E Woerner3, Joseph C Watkins4, Michael F Hammer5.   

Abstract

Partially recessive variants under positive selection are expected to go to fixation more quickly on the X chromosome as a result of hemizygosity, an effect known as faster-X. Conversely, purifying selection is expected to reduce substitution rates more effectively on the X chromosome. Previous work in humans contrasted divergence on the autosomes and X chromosome, with results tending to support the faster-X effect. However, no study has yet incorporated both divergence and polymorphism to quantify the effects of both purifying and positive selection, which are opposing forces with respect to divergence. In this study, we develop a framework that integrates previously developed theory addressing differential rates of X and autosomal evolution with methods that jointly estimate the level of purifying and positive selection via modeling of the distribution of fitness effects (DFE). We then utilize this framework to estimate the proportion of nonsynonymous substitutions fixed by positive selection (α) using exome sequence data from a West African population. We find that varying the female to male breeding ratio (β) has minimal impact on the DFE for the X chromosome, especially when compared with the effect of varying the dominance coefficient of deleterious alleles (h). Estimates of α range from 46% to 51% and from 4% to 24% for the X chromosome and autosomes, respectively. While dependent on h, the magnitude of the difference between α values estimated for these two systems is highly statistically significant over a range of biologically realistic parameter values, suggesting faster-X has been operating in humans.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  X chromosome; autosomes; distribution of fitness effects; humans; positive selection; purifying selection

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24830675      PMCID: PMC4137703          DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msu166

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


  60 in total

1.  Inferences about the distribution of dominance drawn from yeast gene knockout data.

Authors:  Aneil F Agrawal; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Population size changes reshape genomic patterns of diversity.

Authors:  John E Pool; Rasmus Nielsen
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  The McDonald-Kreitman test and slightly deleterious mutations.

Authors:  Jane Charlesworth; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 16.240

4.  A flexible forward simulator for populations subject to selection and demography.

Authors:  Ryan D Hernandez
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 6.937

Review 5.  Genotype and SNP calling from next-generation sequencing data.

Authors:  Rasmus Nielsen; Joshua S Paul; Anders Albrechtsen; Yun S Song
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  Experimental mutation-accumulation on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster reveals stronger selection on males than females.

Authors:  Martin A Mallet; Jessica M Bouchard; Christopher M Kimber; Adam K Chippindale
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-06-06       Impact factor: 3.260

7.  The variant call format and VCFtools.

Authors:  Petr Danecek; Adam Auton; Goncalo Abecasis; Cornelis A Albers; Eric Banks; Mark A DePristo; Robert E Handsaker; Gerton Lunter; Gabor T Marth; Stephen T Sherry; Gilean McVean; Richard Durbin
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 6.937

8.  Sex-biased evolutionary forces shape genomic patterns of human diversity.

Authors:  Michael F Hammer; Fernando L Mendez; Murray P Cox; August E Woerner; Jeffrey D Wall
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-09-26       Impact factor: 5.917

9.  Hypermutable non-synonymous sites are under stronger negative selection.

Authors:  Steffen Schmidt; Anna Gerasimova; Fyodor A Kondrashov; Ivan A Adzhubei; Ivan A Adzuhbei; Alexey S Kondrashov; Shamil Sunyaev
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Assessing the evolutionary impact of amino acid mutations in the human genome.

Authors:  Adam R Boyko; Scott H Williamson; Amit R Indap; Jeremiah D Degenhardt; Ryan D Hernandez; Kirk E Lohmueller; Mark D Adams; Steffen Schmidt; John J Sninsky; Shamil R Sunyaev; Thomas J White; Rasmus Nielsen; Andrew G Clark; Carlos D Bustamante
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-05-30       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  30 in total

1.  Extreme selective sweeps independently targeted the X chromosomes of the great apes.

Authors:  Kiwoong Nam; Kasper Munch; Asger Hobolth; Julien Yann Dutheil; Krishna R Veeramah; August E Woerner; Michael F Hammer; Thomas Mailund; Mikkel Heide Schierup
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Adaptive Evolution Patterns in the Pacific Oyster Crassostrea gigas.

Authors:  Kai Song; Shiyong Wen; Guofan Zhang
Journal:  Mar Biotechnol (NY)       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 3.619

3.  Gene-dense autosomal chromosomes show evidence for increased selection.

Authors:  M Reza Jabalameli; Clare Horscroft; Alejandra Vergara-Lope; Reuben J Pengelly; Andrew Collins
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 4.  Targeted capture in evolutionary and ecological genomics.

Authors:  Matthew R Jones; Jeffrey M Good
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 6.185

5.  Sex differences in deleterious mutational effects in Drosophila melanogaster: combining quantitative and population genetic insights.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon; Max Reuter
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 4.402

6.  The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression.

Authors:  Kelley Harris; Rasmus Nielsen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-04-02       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals.

Authors:  Martin Kuhlwilm; Ilan Gronau; Melissa J Hubisz; Cesare de Filippo; Javier Prado-Martinez; Martin Kircher; Qiaomei Fu; Hernán A Burbano; Carles Lalueza-Fox; Marco de la Rasilla; Antonio Rosas; Pavao Rudan; Dejana Brajkovic; Željko Kucan; Ivan Gušic; Tomas Marques-Bonet; Aida M Andrés; Bence Viola; Svante Pääbo; Matthias Meyer; Adam Siepel; Sergi Castellano
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Sequence and Structural Diversity of Mouse Y Chromosomes.

Authors:  Andrew P Morgan; Fernando Pardo-Manuel de Villena
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 16.240

9.  Contrasting Levels of Molecular Evolution on the Mouse X Chromosome.

Authors:  Erica L Larson; Dan Vanderpool; Sara Keeble; Meng Zhou; Brice A J Sarver; Andrew D Smith; Matthew D Dean; Jeffrey M Good
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Inference of gorilla demographic and selective history from whole-genome sequence data.

Authors:  Kimberly F McManus; Joanna L Kelley; Shiya Song; Krishna R Veeramah; August E Woerner; Laurie S Stevison; Oliver A Ryder; Great Ape Genome Project; Jeffrey M Kidd; Jeffrey D Wall; Carlos D Bustamante; Michael F Hammer
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2014-12-21       Impact factor: 16.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.