4.0 Article

Selection on the Human Bitter Taste Gene, TAS2R16, in Eurasian Populations

期刊

HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 363-377

出版社

WAYNE STATE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3378/027.083.0303

关键词

TAS2R16; GENETIC VARIATION; POSITIVE SELECTION; GATHERING; BITTER TASTE

资金

  1. U.S. Public Health Service [AA009379, GM057672]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS0725180]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bitter taste is one of the most important senses alerting humans to noxious foods. In gatherer communities, sensitivity to bitterness is presumably advantageous because of various noxious plants. TAS2R16 is the gene coding the taste receptor molecules for some of the most common toxins in plants. A previous study of this gene indicated selection has increased the frequency of a derived allele in this gene that arose before the human expansion out of Africa. We have applied a different methodology for detecting selection, the Long Range Haplotype (LRH) analysis, to TAS2R16 in a larger sampling of populations from around the world. The haplotype with the derived alleles at both the functional polymorphism and a polymorphism in the regulatory region of TAS2R16 showed evidence for recent positive selection in most of the Eurasian populations, though the highest selection signal occurs in Mbuti Pygmies, an African hunter-gatherer group. In Eurasia, only populations of Mesopotamia and the southeast coast of China have no signals of selection. The evidence of recent selection found in most Eurasian populations differs from the geographic pattern seen in the earlier study of selection. One can speculate that the difference may result from a gathering lifestyle extending into the most recent 10,000 yrs and the need to recognize newly encountered bitter natural toxins as populations expanded into new environments and the biota changes with the ending of the most recent ice age. Alternatively, the promoter region variant may be a marker for altered function beyond what the derived amino acid allele conferred.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据