4.8 Article

Genome Wide Analyses Reveal Little Evidence for Adaptive Evolution in Many Plant Species

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 1822-1832

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msq079

Keywords

adaptive evolution; distribution of fitness effects; plants; effective population size; McDonald-Kreitman test

Funding

  1. John Maynard Smith studentship
  2. John Maynard Smith, National Science Foundation [EF-0723447]
  3. National Institute of Health [R01 GM086496]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council UK
  5. Duke University
  6. University of Sussex
  7. Max Planck Society
  8. NERC [NE/F018991/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C512310/2, BB/C512310/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F018991/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relative contribution of advantageous and neutral mutations to the evolutionary process is a central problem in evolutionary biology. Current estimates suggest that whereas Drosophila, mice, and bacteria have undergone extensive adaptive evolution, hominids show little or no evidence of adaptive evolution in protein-coding sequences. This may be a consequence of differences in effective population size. To study the matter further, we have investigated whether plants show evidence of adaptive evolution using an extension of the McDonald-Kreitman test that explicitly models slightly deleterious mutations by estimating the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. We apply this method to data from nine pairs of species. Altogether more than 2,400 loci with an average length of approximate to 280 nucleotides were analyzed. We observe very similar results in all species; we find little evidence of adaptive amino acid substitution in any comparison except sunflowers. This may be because many plant species have modest effective population sizes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available