4.4 Article

Quantifying GC-Biased Gene Conversion in Great Ape Genomes Using Polymorphism-Aware Models

Journal

GENETICS
Volume 212, Issue 4, Pages 1321-1336

Publisher

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.119.302074

Keywords

Moran model; boundary mutations; allelic selection; great apes; GC-bias; gBGC

Funding

  1. Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [MA16-061]
  2. European Research Council under the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [714774]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As multi-individual population-scale data become available, more complex modeling strategies are needed to quantify genome-wide patterns of nucleotide usage and associated mechanisms of evolution. Recently, the multivariate neutral Moran model was proposed. However, it was shown insufficient to explain the distribution of alleles in great apes. Here, we propose a new model that includes allelic selection. Our theoretical results constitute the basis of a new Bayesian framework to estimate mutation rates and selection coefficients from population data. We apply the new framework to a great ape dataset, where we found patterns of allelic selection that match those of genome-wide GC-biased gene conversion (gBGC). In particular, we show that great apes have patterns of allelic selection that vary in intensity-a feature that we correlated with great apes' distinct demographies. We also demonstrate that the AT/GC toggling effect decreases the probability of a substitution, promoting more polymorphisms in the base composition of great ape genomes. We further assess the impact of GC-bias in molecular analysis, and find that mutation rates and genetic distances are estimated under bias when gBGC is not properly accounted for. Our results contribute to the discussion on the tempo and mode of gBGC evolution, while stressing the need for gBGC-aware models in population genetics and phylogenetics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available