Literature DB >> 28400513

Determining the factors driving selective effects of new nonsynonymous mutations.

Christian D Huber1, Bernard Y Kim2, Clare D Marsden2, Kirk E Lohmueller1,3,4.   

Abstract

The distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of new mutations plays a fundamental role in evolutionary genetics. However, the extent to which the DFE differs across species has yet to be systematically investigated. Furthermore, the biological mechanisms determining the DFE in natural populations remain unclear. Here, we show that theoretical models emphasizing different biological factors at determining the DFE, such as protein stability, back-mutations, species complexity, and mutational robustness make distinct predictions about how the DFE will differ between species. Analyzing amino acid-changing variants from natural populations in a comparative population genomic framework, we find that humans have a higher proportion of strongly deleterious mutations than Drosophila melanogaster. Furthermore, when comparing the DFE across yeast, Drosophila, mice, and humans, the average selection coefficient becomes more deleterious with increasing species complexity. Last, pleiotropic genes have a DFE that is less variable than that of nonpleiotropic genes. Comparing four categories of theoretical models, only Fisher's geometrical model (FGM) is consistent with our findings. FGM assumes that multiple phenotypes are under stabilizing selection, with the number of phenotypes defining the complexity of the organism. Our results suggest that long-term population size and cost of complexity drive the evolution of the DFE, with many implications for evolutionary and medical genomics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fisher’s geometrical model; Poisson random field; distribution of fitness effects; mutational robustness; protein stability

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28400513      PMCID: PMC5410820          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1619508114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  49 in total

1.  Estimating the distribution of fitness effects from DNA sequence data: implications for the molecular clock.

Authors:  Gwenaël Piganeau; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-08-18       Impact factor: 11.205

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.  Selection for chaperone-like mediated genetic robustness at low mutation rate: impact of drift, epistasis and complexity.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexis Gros; Olivier Tenaillon
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-03-23       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  The evolutionarily stable distribution of fitness effects.

Authors:  Daniel P Rice; Benjamin H Good; Michael M Desai
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  On the utility of short intron sequences as a reference for the detection of positive and negative selection in Drosophila.

Authors:  John Parsch; Sergey Novozhilov; Sarah S Saminadin-Peter; Karen M Wong; Peter Andolfatto
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 16.240

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.  Adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila.

Authors:  Nick G C Smith; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-02-28       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Joint inference of the distribution of fitness effects of deleterious mutations and population demography based on nucleotide polymorphism frequencies.

Authors:  Peter D Keightley; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 10.  Comparative genomics as a tool to understand evolution and disease.

Authors:  Jessica Alföldi; Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 9.043

View more
  32 in total

1.  Understanding the Hidden Complexity of Latin American Population Isolates.

Authors:  Jazlyn A Mooney; Christian D Huber; Susan Service; Jae Hoon Sul; Clare D Marsden; Zhongyang Zhang; Chiara Sabatti; Andrés Ruiz-Linares; Gabriel Bedoya; Nelson Freimer; Kirk E Lohmueller
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Toward an Evolutionarily Appropriate Null Model: Jointly Inferring Demography and Purifying Selection.

Authors:  Parul Johri; Brian Charlesworth; Jeffrey D Jensen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Background Selection Does Not Mimic the Patterns of Genetic Diversity Produced by Selective Sweeps.

Authors:  Daniel R Schrider
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  How Much Does Ne Vary Among Species?

Authors:  Nicolas Galtier; Marjolaine Rousselle
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Comparison of the Full Distribution of Fitness Effects of New Amino Acid Mutations Across Great Apes.

Authors:  David Castellano; Moisès Coll Macià; Paula Tataru; Thomas Bataillon; Kasper Munch
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  The evolutionary scaling of cellular traits imposed by the drift barrier.

Authors:  Michael Lynch
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  A Theoretical Framework for Evolutionary Cell Biology.

Authors:  Michael Lynch; Bogi Trickovic
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 5.469

8.  Haplotype-based inference of the distribution of fitness effects.

Authors:  Diego Ortega-Del Vecchyo; Kirk E Lohmueller; John Novembre
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  The Counteracting Effects of Demography on Functional Genomic Variation: The Roma Paradigm.

Authors:  Neus Font-Porterias; Rocio Caro-Consuegra; Marcel Lucas-Sánchez; Marie Lopez; Aaron Giménez; Annabel Carballo-Mesa; Elena Bosch; Francesc Calafell; Lluís Quintana-Murci; David Comas
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Revisiting the notion of deleterious sweeps.

Authors:  Parul Johri; Brian Charlesworth; Emma K Howell; Michael Lynch; Jeffrey D Jensen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 4.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.