4.5 Review

The loci of evolution: How predictable is genetic evolution ?

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 62, Issue 9, Pages 2155-2177

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00450.x

Keywords

cis-regulation; development; genetic variation; genome; phenotypic variation

Funding

  1. NIH [GM063622-06A1]
  2. NSF [IOS-0640339]
  3. David & Lucile Packard Foundation
  4. CNRS
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM063622] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Is genetic evolution predictable ? Evolutionary developmental biologists have argued that, at least for morphological traits, the answer is a resounding yes. Most mutations causing morphological variation are expected to reside in the cis-regulatory, rather than the coding, regions of developmental genes. This cis-regulatory hypothesis has recently come under attack. In this review, we first describe and critique the arguments that have been proposed in support of the cis-regulatory hypothesis. We then test the empirical support for the cis-regulatory hypothesis with a comprehensive survey of mutations responsible for phenotypic evolution in multicellular organisms. Cis-regulatory mutations currently represent approximately 22% of 331 identified genetic changes although the number of cis-regulatory changes published annually is rapidly increasing. Above the species level, cis-regulatory mutations altering morphology are more common than coding changes. Also, above the species level cis-regulatory mutations predominate for genes not involved in terminal differentiation. These patterns imply that the simple question Do coding or cis-regulatory mutations cause more phenotypic evolution ? hides more interesting phenomena. Evolution in different kinds of populations and over different durations may result in selection of different kinds of mutations. Predicting the genetic basis of evolution requires a comprehensive synthesis of molecular developmental biology and population genetics.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available