4.3 Article

Evidence of gene conversion in the evolutionary process of the codon 41/42 (-CTTT) mutation causing β-thalassemia in southern China

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 436-445

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-008-9096-2

关键词

gene conversion; evolutionary process; balancing selection; beta-thalassemia; malaria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 4-bp deletion (-CTTT) at codon 41/42 (CD41/42) of the human beta-globin gene represents one of the most common beta-thalassemia mutations in East Asia and Southeast Asia, which is historically afflicted with endemic malaria, thus hypothetically evolving under natural selection by malaria infection. To understand the evolutionary process of generating the beta(CD41/42) allele and its maintenance, including the effect of natural selection on the pattern of linkage disequilibrium (LD), we sequenced a 15.933-kb region spanning 20.693 kb of the beta-globin cluster surrounding the 4-bp deletion using a sample from a Chinese population consisting of 24 normal individuals and 16 heterozygotes for the deletion. Forty-nine polymorphic sites were found. Analysis of the data, using a variety of methods including formal population genetics analysis and visual approaches, suggests that the spread of the CD41/42 (-CTTT) deletion is most likely mediated by interallelic gene conversion, although independent deletions in different lineages are also possible. The neutrality test resulted in a significant positive Tajima's D for the beta-globin locus, which is consistent with the existence of balancing selection. This suggests that the 4-bp deletion that occurred at this locus may be an event that is subject to natural selection, due to malaria, which leads to the heterozygote advantage, spread widely with further help by conversion and migration. The evolutionary process of this mutant through gene conversion that could conceivably take place between the 4-bp deletion and the normal sequence in the respective region is discussed in detail.

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

4.3
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