4.8 Article

Substitution rates in the X- and Y-linked genes of the plants, Silene latifolia and S-dioica

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 898-907

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004147

Keywords

sex chromosomes; efficacy of selection; mutation rates

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Theory predicts that selection should be less effective in the nonrecombining genes of Y-chromosomes, relative to the situation for genes on the other chromosomes, and this should lead to the accumulation of deleterious nonsynonymous substitutions. In addition, synonymous substitution rates may differ between X- and Y-linked genes because of the male-driven evolution effect and also because of actual differences in per-replication mutation rates between the sex chromosomes. Here, we report the first study of synonymous and nonsynomynous substitution rates on plant sex chromosomes. We sequenced two pairs of sex-linked genes. SlX1-SlY1 and SlX4-SlY4, from dioecious Silene latifolia and S. dioica, and their non-sex-linked homologues from nondioecious S. vulgaris and Lychnis flosjovis, respectively. The rate of nonsynonymous substitutions in the SlY4 gene is significantly higher than that in the SlX4 gene. Silent substitution rates are also significantly higher in both Y-linked,ones. compared with their X-linked homologues. The higher nonsynonymous substitution rate in the SlY4 gene is therefore likely to he caused by a mutation rate difference between the sex chromosomes. The difference in silent substitution rates between the SlX4 and SlY4 genes is too great to be explained solely by a higher per-generation Mutation rate in males than females. It is thus probably caused by a difference in per-replication mutation rates between the sex chromosomes. This suggests that the local mutation rate can change in a relatively short evolutionary time.

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