4.8 Article

Relative rates of evolution in the coding and control regions of African mtDNAs

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 24, Issue 10, Pages 2213-2221

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msm147

Keywords

initochondrial DNA; molecular clock; phylogenetic analysis; selection; molecular evolution

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G90/63] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [G90/63] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reduced median networks of African haplogroup L mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences were analyzed to determine the pattern of substitutions in both the noncoding control and coding regions. In particular, we attempted to determine the causes of the previously reported (Howell et al. 2004) violation of the molecular clock during the evolution of these sequences. In the coding region, there was a significantly higher rate of substitution at synonymous sites than at nonsynonymous sites as well as in the tRNA and rRNA genes. This is further evidence for the operation of purifying selection during human mtDNA evolution. For most sites in the control region, the relative rate of substitution was similar to the rate of neutral evolution (assumed to be most closely approximated by the substitution rate at 4-fold degenerate sites). However, there are a number of mutational hot spots in the control region, similar to 3% of the total sites, that have a rate of substitution greater than the neutral rate, at some sites by more than an order of magnitude. It is possible either that these sites are evolving under conditions of positive selection or that the substitution rate at some sites in the control region is strongly dependent upon sequence context. Finally, we obtained preliminary evidence for nonideal evolution in the control region, including haplogroup-specific substitution patterns and a decoupling between relative rates of substitution in the control and coding regions.

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